Jump to content

The Nature of Reality


Ragingmoron
 Share

Recommended Posts

Before the Big Bang, there is what can be described mathematically as a single point of infinite energy. To reach this "point" would require a journey back through infinite space and time. No relativistic observer could ever make this journey. No matter how far you travel, you will remain infinitely far away, encountering higher and higher energy physics as you go. This "point" of infinite energy (+) is the source of all things. At the opposite end of the spectrum, is an infinite expanse void of energy (the vacuum). To reach this place, would require a journey forward through infinite space and time. No relativistic observer could ever make this journey. No matter how far you travel, you will remain infinitely far away, encountering lower and lower energy physics as you go (i.e., redshift). This "expanse" void of energy (-) is the backdrop against which relativity plays out. Dark energy, is the natural tension between the "point" of infinite energy, and the "expanse" void of energy. Each place exists permanently in its own right, without beginning or end, and can never be directly observed, because any observer will find themselves infinitely far away regardless of what they do. The thermodynamic arrow of time, is a journey "away" from infinite light and "towards" infinite darkness. No matter what happens, all observers are caught in the balance. The Universe never began, and it will never end. It has always existed, does always exist, and will always exist, just like Jesus said 2000 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

Before the Big Bang, there is what can be described mathematically as a single point of infinite energy. To reach this "point" would require a journey back through infinite space and time. No relativistic observer could ever make this journey. No matter how far you travel, you will remain infinitely far away, encountering higher and higher energy physics as you go. This "point" of infinite energy (+) is the source of all things. At the opposite end of the spectrum, is an infinite expanse void of energy (the vacuum). To reach this place, would require a journey forward through infinite space and time. No relativistic observer could ever make this journey. No matter how far you travel, you will remain infinitely far away, encountering lower and lower energy physics as you go (i.e., redshift). This "expanse" void of energy (-) is the backdrop against which relativity plays out. Dark energy, is the natural tension between the "point" of infinite energy, and the "expanse" void of energy. Each place exists permanently in its own right, without beginning or end, and can never be directly observed, because any observer will find themselves infinitely far away regardless of what they do. The thermodynamic arrow of time, is a journey "away" from infinite light and "towards" infinite darkness. No matter what happens, all observers are caught in the balance. The Universe never began, and it will never end. It has always existed, does always exist, and will always exist, just like Jesus said 2000 years ago.

 

Surely this belongs in the stories section ?

Sounds like a job for an EE Doc Smith's Lensman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Surely this belongs in the stories section ?

Sounds like a job for an EE Doc Smith's Lensman.

No. It belongs precisely where it is. There is an underlying assumption that seems to have been made with regards to Relativity that the Singularity can't be exactly what it appears to be. Basic logic makes it clear, this assumption is mistaken. Time is relative. The assumption that the Universe had a beginning is intuitively appealing, but demonstrably illogical.

Edited by Ragingmoron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

Dark energy, is the natural tension between the "point" of infinite energy, and the "expanse" void of energy.

What's that supposed to mean?

30 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

The Universe never began, and it will never end. It has always existed, does always exist, and will always exist, just like Jesus said 2000 years ago.

I don't recall where in the bible Jesus discussed physics.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

The Universe never began, and it will never end. It has always existed, does always exist, and will always exist, just like Jesus said 2000 years ago.

!

Moderator Note

OK, you're making a LOT of non-mainstream statements that would need evidential support, PLUS you're referencing religious works as well, so this can't stay in Astronomy and Cosmology. I'm moving this to Speculations, where you'll need to support your ideas with evidence and sound reasoning. Please be rigorous in addressing comments from members, who will be trying to show where observation contradicts your ideas. Welcome to the discussion forums!

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the problem. Some people take what really are dumbed-down verbalisations of salient aspects of physical theories, and run away with them.

Add Jesus to the mix, and you've got this post.

Energy could not possibly have been infinite at the big bang. I think you mean energy density.

Energy = -infinity makes even less sense. Energy is positive definite, otherwise you have non-causal behaviour.

 

x-posted with @Phi for All

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:
!

Moderator Note

OK, you're making a LOT of non-mainstream statements that would need evidential support, PLUS you're referencing religious works as well, so this can't stay in Astronomy and Cosmology. I'm moving this to Speculations, where you'll need to support your ideas with evidence and sound reasoning. Please be rigorous in addressing comments from members, who will be trying to show where observation contradicts your ideas. Welcome to the discussion forums!

 

Some members will be trying to show where observation contradicts my ideas. Others will attempt to probe the underlying logic or terminology. Others still will make snarky comments that serve no purpose whatsoever. Please apply your standards consistently, and I will do my best to keep on topic and defend my assertions with logic.

10 minutes ago, joigus said:

This is the problem. Some people take what really are dumbed-down verbalisations of salient aspects of physical theories, and run away with them.

Add Jesus to the mix, and you've got this post.

Energy could not possibly have been infinite at the big bang. I think you mean energy density.

Energy = -infinity makes even less sense. Energy is positive definite, otherwise you have non-causal behaviour.

 

x-posted with @Phi for All

"Energy could not possibly have been infinite at the Big Bang."

I'm glad we agree, if you were to re-read my post I daresay you might recognize you have mischaracterized my words. What I said, is that *before* the Big Bang, is a progression of higher and higher energy physics that carries on infinitely. You can never reach the "point of origin" relative to observation, because no matter how long you chase infinity, it remains infinitely far away.

19 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

What's that supposed to mean?

I don't recall where in the bible Jesus discussed physics.  

Jesus said God is "He who was, is, and always will be" which was the best way the commoners he frequently mingled with could approach his fundamental understanding, that beginnings and ends are relative but reality is eternal.

Dark Energy, is the tension between the state of infinite positive energy at the "beginning" of time and the infinite negative energy at the "end" of time. As we move away from infinitely positive energy density (infinite energy concentrated in a single mathematical "point") towards infinitely negative energy density (infinite energy spread out across infinite mathematical "points") in relative terms, the Universe expands. Because time is relative, this expansion occurs unevenly in accordance with localised time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

I'm glad we agree, if you were to re-read my post I daresay you might recognize you have mischaracterized my words. What I said, is that *before* the Big Bang, is a progression of higher and higher energy physics that carries on infinitely.

Hold on, I've got Jesus on the phone, and he's telling me you got him completely wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, joigus said:

Hold on, I've got Jesus on the phone, and he's telling me you got him completely wrong.

If you would like to address any of the points I made on the basis of logic or evidence, please feel free to do so and I will be happy to have a conversation. Until then please feel free to take your petty narcissism and fragile wit and stick them where the light is void.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ragingmoron said:

If you would like to address any of the points I made on the basis of logic or evidence, please feel free to do so and I will be happy to have a conversation. Until then please feel free to take your petty narcissism and fragile wit and stick them where the light is void.

I already made those points and you didn't bother to answer. What's the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

Please apply your standards consistently, and I will do my best to keep on topic and defend my assertions with logic.

!

Moderator Note

Logic helps, but what we want is for you to support your claims with evidence

 
1 hour ago, Ragingmoron said:

No relativistic observer could ever make this journey

And? I’m failing to understand why this matters. We can’t travel back in time to unscramble an egg, either. That’s a pretty meaningless claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ragingmoron said:

Jesus said God is "He who was, is, and always will be"

Still doesn't seem like physics to me.

1 hour ago, Ragingmoron said:

Dark Energy, is the tension between the state of infinite positive energy at the "beginning" of time

If there was infinite "positive energy" at the beginning of time then no matter how big the universe gets there will still be infinite "positive energy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Energy of a system can never get to negative infinity ( whatever that means ); it can't even get to zero because of Quantum mechanical effects. Your 'logic' is mathematically flawed.
What exactly is it based on ?

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Hold on, I've got Jesus on the phone, and he's telling me you got him completely wrong.

Not good enough, Joigus; Ragingmoron hears Jesus' voice in his head ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

If you would like to address any of the points I made on the basis of logic or evidence, please feel free to do so and I will be happy to have a conversation. Until then please feel free to take your petty narcissism and fragile wit and stick them where the light is void.

!

Moderator Note

You didn't address your mistake about energy "density", so that would help. It's OK to say your words were misconstrued, but then you should explain what you really meant.

 
5 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

Jesus said God is "He who was, is, and always will be" which was the best way the commoners he frequently mingled with could approach his fundamental understanding, that beginnings and ends are relative but reality is eternal.

!

Moderator Note

Since you're making scientific claims, let's leave religion out of it, since it represents a supernatural aspect that can't be addressed. You should be able to support your concept with evidence.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

Some members will be trying to show where observation contradicts my ideas.

This is a science forum and that's how science works.

6 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

 Others will attempt to probe the underlying logic or terminology.

Just be aware that supernatural and paranormal concepts, myths and ideas, are unscientific at best, and gullibly nonsensical at worst.

6 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

Others still will make snarky comments that serve no purpose whatsoever. Please apply your standards consistently, and I will do my best to keep on topic and defend my assertions with logic.

You mean just like you have just done?

6 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

"Energy could not possibly have been infinite at the Big Bang."

I'm glad we agree, if you were to re-read my post I daresay you might recognize you have mischaracterized my words. What I said, is that *before* the Big Bang, is a progression of higher and higher energy physics that carries on infinitely. You can never reach the "point of origin" relative to observation, because no matter how long you chase infinity, it remains infinitely far away.

There is no way of knowing what the total energy is. Plus of course, as so logically and reasonably explained in Lawrence Krauss'book, "A Universe from Nothing", it is imo anyway, far easier to imagine the quantum foam (nothing) having existed for eternity, then some complicated, unscientific, mythical deity of your choice. That is not science, although "we dont know" is also an acceptable answer.

6 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

Jesus said God is "He who was, is, and always will be" which was the best way the commoners he frequently mingled with could approach his fundamental understanding, that beginnings and ends are relative but reality is eternal.

 Was that a science book you got that quote from? 

6 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

Dark Energy, is the tension between the state of infinite positive energy at the "beginning" of time and the infinite negative energy at the "end" of time. As we move away from infinitely positive energy density (infinite energy concentrated in a single mathematical "point") towards infinitely negative energy density (infinite energy spread out across infinite mathematical "points") in relative terms, the Universe expands. Because time is relative, this expansion occurs unevenly in accordance with localised time.

The Universe expands over larger scales....over smaller scales, gravity decouples regions of spacetime from that expansion,eg: Our local group of galaxies. DE refers to the acceleration in that expansion rate, and is a place mat for "we actually don't know exactly why"

7 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

Before the Big Bang, there is what can be described mathematically as a single point of infinite energy.

The BB says nothing about the single point that was the instant of the BB. The BB tells us about the evolution of space and time from 10-35th seconds after the event. Some reasoanble scientific speculation does exist though.

 

7 hours ago, Ragingmoron said:

The Universe never began, and it will never end. It has always existed, does always exist, and will always exist, just like Jesus said 2000 years ago.

While the BB is applicable to the observable universe, the rest of your proclamation is based on nothing more then mythical ideas to support what I see as a religious, unscientific agenda. The bible is not a science book, and in actual fact is simply a gathering of mythical stories, in an obscure time and written by obscure men.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2021 at 9:47 AM, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

Logic helps, but what we want is for you to support your claims with evidence

 

And? I’m failing to understand why this matters. We can’t travel back in time to unscramble an egg, either. That’s a pretty meaningless claim.

Logic is the rational manner of interpreting scientific evidence. Logic and evidence are inseparable parts of the process of seeking truth. As far as my other claim goes, the point is that using logic to interpret available evidence, it is abundantly clear that there is no beginning of the universe, just an infinite progression from one high-energy "end" of the spectrum to the other low-energy "end" of the spectrum. But each end being infinitely far away, you can never reach either end relative to observation or observe either end relative to motion.

PS: If not for the use of logical hypotheticals, I.e. thought experiments, Einstein would never have understood relativity in the first place, which is why I will continue to hammer home the point that scientific rationalism at the expense of philosophical inquiry isn't just misguided, it is downright foolish.

On 12/14/2021 at 10:32 AM, Bufofrog said:

Still doesn't seem like physics to me.

If there was infinite "positive energy" at the beginning of time then no matter how big the universe gets there will still be infinite "positive energy".

The void pulls energy away from the Singularity, which is what gives all energy and matter its relative motion (I.e. gravity). In other words, all energy and matter can ultimately be understood as a unit of infinity. 

Take for instance 1 gram. 1 gram can be divided into infinitely smaller units, anything less than but never equal to infinity. In other words, one unit can be more precise in relative terms (a nanogram is a more precise measurement than a gram) but any conceivable unit leaves infinite room for improvement regardless of the context. All information exists relative to the Singularity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

Logic is the rational manner of interpreting scientific evidence. Logic and evidence are inseparable parts of the process of seeking truth. As far as my other claim goes, the point is that using logic to interpret available evidence, it is abundantly clear that there is no beginning of the universe, just an infinite progression from one high-energy "end" of the spectrum to the other low-energy "end" of the spectrum. But each end being infinitely far away, you can never reach either end relative to observation or observe either end relative to motion.

Logic is not a substitute for evidence, and evidence is interpreted via models that allow for comparison and prediction. It’s not enough to just be logical. Newtonian/Galilean physics, for example, is logical, but it doesn’t match experiment, so at best it’s an approximation 

 

13 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

PS: If not for the use of logical hypotheticals, I.e. thought experiments, Einstein would never have understood relativity in the first place, which is why I will continue to hammer home the point that scientific rationalism at the expense of philosophical inquiry isn't just misguided, it is downright foolish.

You can do whatever helps you to gain insight, but relativity would not have been accepted without experimental confirmation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2021 at 2:50 PM, Phi for All said:
!

Moderator Note

You didn't address your mistake about energy "density", so that would help. It's OK to say your words were misconstrued, but then you should explain what you really meant.

 
!

Moderator Note

Since you're making scientific claims, let's leave religion out of it, since it represents a supernatural aspect that can't be addressed. You should be able to support your concept with evidence.

 

 

"What I said, is that *before* the Big Bang, is a progression of higher and higher energy physics that carries on infinitely. You can never reach the "point of origin" relative to observation, because no matter how long you chase infinity, it remains infinitely far away."

That was me, explaining what I really meant, after stating that my words had been misconstrued. Is there something I'm missing or part of my explanation that needs further clarification? Because I thought that covered it...

I'll leave Jesus out of it, even though I don't see what the big deal is. Merely referencing Jesus does not constitute reference to the supernatural. I see Jesus as the intellectual ancestor of Newton and Einstein.

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Logic is not a substitute for evidence, and evidence is interpreted via models that allow for comparison and prediction. It’s not enough to just be logical. Newtonian/Galilean physics, for example, is logical, but it doesn’t match experiment, so at best it’s an approximation 

 

You can do whatever helps you to gain insight, but relativity would not have been accepted without experimental confirmation. 

I completely agree. My point is that observational and experimental evidence demonstrates the fundamental nature of reality, and you can't talk about "evidence" on the one hand and ignore the mathematical nature of the Singularity on the other. Relativity has passed every test ever thrown at it, so why shouldn't we think the Singularity is anything but what it appears to be?

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; A single experiment can prove me wrong."

-Attributed to Albert Einstein

On 12/14/2021 at 12:11 PM, MigL said:

Energy of a system can never get to negative infinity ( whatever that means ); it can't even get to zero because of Quantum mechanical effects. Your 'logic' is mathematically flawed.
What exactly is it based on ?

Not good enough, Joigus; Ragingmoron hears Jesus' voice in his head ...

What you call "absolute zero" I call negative infinity. Because 1 Kelvin can ultimately be further divided into infinitely smaller units to improve precision, like any other unit. In order to claim there is "zero" of something, you must give something definition, and all definitions are fundamentally inadequate because all information exists relative to the Singularity. Human beings have developed the misguided notion that the ability to speak is the ability to define. Language, however, like math, is relative. For example, in English "blue" covers a spectral range that requires two words in Italian. A hypothetical creature with a higher level of sensitivity to light could conceivably use thousands of words to cover the same range. In other words, "zero" is imaginary. Nothing, by definition, does not exist.

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

Logic is not a substitute for evidence, and evidence is interpreted via models that allow for comparison and prediction. It’s not enough to just be logical. Newtonian/Galilean physics, for example, is logical, but it doesn’t match experiment, so at best it’s an approximation.

Newtonian physics was a logical interpretation of the evidence that was available at that time. Physics will always need further adjustments relative to scale. Ultimately, physics is defined on scales of infinity, but in relative terms, we will always fall short of this absolute standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

*before* the Big Bang

This is a meaningless concept - the BB represents a singularity in (classical) spacetime, so it is a region that is geodesically incomplete. If you were able to “stand” at the BB, all spatial distances would be zero, and no matter what kind of manoeuvre you performed, it would always take you only to the future. Asking what is before the BB is like asking what is north of the North Pole - it’s simply meaningless, because there are no past-oriented world lines there, just as there is no ‘north’ in any direction when standing directly on the pole.

Also, once you account for quantum effects, a strong case can be made that smooth and classical spacetime breaks down long before you even reach the BB, so here too the concept of ‘before the BB’ is meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

This is a meaningless concept - the BB represents a singularity in (classical) spacetime, so it is a region that is geodesically incomplete. If you were able to “stand” at the BB, all spatial distances would be zero, and no matter what kind of manoeuvre you performed, it would always take you only to the future. Asking what is before the BB is like asking what is north of the North Pole - it’s simply meaningless, because there are no past-oriented world lines there, just as there is no ‘north’ in any direction when standing directly on the pole.

Also, once you account for quantum effects, a strong case can be made that smooth and classical spacetime breaks down long before you even reach the BB, so here too the concept of ‘before the BB’ is meaningless.

Isn't  the BB at  T+ 10^-43 seconds?

There would have been a time before then,wouldn't there?

If you are talking about T=0 seconds then I think I see your point.

 

Would that mean no beginning as well as no "prior"?

 

Or is T=O just something we can say nothing about since the model breaks down then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, geordief said:

Isn't  the BB at  T+ 10^-43 seconds?

There would have been a time before then,wouldn't there?

If you are talking about T=0 seconds then I think I see your point.

 

Would that mean no beginning as well as no "prior"?

 

Or is T=O just something we can say nothing about since the model breaks down then?

What it means is that ultimately finite interpretation of cause and effect is fatally flawed. All cause exists relative to infinite effect, and all effect exists relative to infinite cause. 

T=0 is infinitely far away. Within 1 second is infinite time. There is no limit to how high the frequency of light can be. Our understanding of the universe is relative to our bandwidth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, geordief said:

Isn't  the BB at  T+ 10^-43 seconds?

There would have been a time before then,wouldn't there?

If you are talking about T=0 seconds then I think I see your point.

 

Would that mean no beginning as well as no "prior"?

 

Or is T=O just something we can say nothing about since the model breaks down then?

Yes of course, t=0, equates to the instant of the BB, the point is our laws of physics and GR, only predict back to t+10-35econds.  (I always thought it was t=10-45th until corrected.

1 hour ago, Ragingmoron said:

What it means is that ultimately finite interpretation of cause and effect is fatally flawed. All cause exists relative to infinite effect, and all effect exists relative to infinite cause. 

T=0 is infinitely far away. Within 1 second is infinite time. There is no limit to how high the frequency of light can be. Our understanding of the universe is relative to our bandwidth.

Sounds rather like mythical gobblydook to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes of course, t=0, equates to the instant of the BB, the point is our laws of physics and GR, only predict back to t+10-35econds.  (I always thought it was t=10-45th until corrected.

Sounds rather like mythical gobblydook to me.

T=0 does not equate to the instant of the Big Bang. "Before" the Big Bang is an infinite progression of higher and higher energy physics, culminating in what can be described mathematically as a single point of infinite energy density and colloquially as a place of infinite light absent darkness. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.