Nothingness, pre-Big Bang

kyle_baron · Dec 6, 2006

In fact, there likely being no physical mass present in a Black Hole, the gravity there, which equates to the Black Hole itself, must be pure [attractive] energy, which we refer to as a singulatiry. So, as I see it, gravity is probably both mass and/or energy. So, you're saying that the singularity changes matter to attractive energy. And this energy exists in no volume, what so ever ( or no space). And when enough attractive energy accumulates, it magically becomes repulsive, and the blackhole explodes? That's quite imaginitive. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

oscar1 · Dec 7, 2006

At Cern they have produced anti-matter, using positive energy to do so. Anti-matter itself is only called anti-matter, because it is the exact opposite of matter as we know it, but can in a location other than ours, where all matter consists of the same opposite, just as well be called [positive] matter. In other words, both of this matter can be seen as positive, as long as it doesn't come too close to one another. If it would come too close, both would turn into sheer energy instantly; no magic involved here!

kyle_baron · Dec 7, 2006

We're getting a little off topic here, however, I don't disagree with your idea about the nature of the singularity. As a matter of fact, I like it! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> It could be an attractive energy. But, the singularity is surrounded by matter, which is compressing it. If I understand you correctly, you believe that all the matter collapses into a single singularity. The reason that this is not correct, is that gravity causes matter to accumulate, and squeezes itself together. That's how gravity works. I believe your attractive energy singularity concept is possible, because of the dual nature of matter, being a particle/(energy)wave duality. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

oscar1 · Dec 8, 2006

The trouble is that we do not know how gravity works, outside that it manifests itself as attractive energy. If gravity exerts as a particle/wave duality, we would have to either accept that gravity (or gravitons) travels (travel) faster than light, or that Black Holes do not exist. A bit of a dilemma that! But if there is any substance (meant in a literal sense) to the/a Big Bang singularity, there can be no reason why Black Holes couldn't exist. And if, in addition to that, light indeed sets the ultimate speed limit, gravity force cannot be a particle/wave duality. Yet it does represent [attractive] energy. In all, the whole thing is a very interesting mystery so far.

newtonian · Dec 9, 2006

cretdob- Thank you. Well, I certainly consider Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.", more logical and scientifically tenable than saying our universe began from nothing. For me personally, I find the fine tuning of our universe illogical without a Fine Tuner. And the laws of our universe testify to a Lawgiver or Lawmaker. Laws don't come from nothing! Those that believe our universe came from nothing are invoking a far more magical and fantastic 'miracle' than those that believe in intellignent design. So, for example, the precise fine tuning of nuclear resonances that allow for the synthesis of carbon in stars is just coincidence rather than intelligently designed? Of course, those who believe it just happenned are usually not aware of how fine tuned those nuclear resonances are! BTW - it was astronomer Fred Hoyle who predicted said resonances, which further scientific research proved true.

newtonian · Dec 9, 2006

alkalin - I kind of agree also. However, science can also reveal things formerly unknown - hence scientific revelation!

newtonian · Dec 9, 2006

robina_williams - Your welcome. In answer to your question: The Bible uses the term "heaven" to include the stars we see at night, for example. I hope to post a quote to prove that eventually - my sleep time approaches! Heaven would include what we might call ethereal, as for example something akin to 'ether' in properties of universes - such as may be involved in the propagation of dark energy - but we simply do not know yet how dark energy is propagated. In the Bible, the word spirit comes from Hebrew and Greek words which both mean 'invisible active force,' compare invisible energy. Invisible energy is not nothing - rather it is something else! The heaven of the heavens is not all containing, according to the verse I quoted. For example, God cannot be contained within said universe, though many universes would be contained within said heaven of the heavens - if said interpretation is correct, btw. God dwells in still another heaven or universe beyond in whatever ways the heaven of the heavens. Which may imvolve dimensions. On your next question: Yes, the 4 dimensions we kinow about probably exploded into existence at what is dubbed the big bang. However, this may have involved collisions of branes with other dimensions, or some other cause and effect, and I feel certainly involved primordial time independent of our universe specific space/time, was necessary for cause and effect to proceed, with intelligent fine tuning from our Creator, Jehovah. [Note: that is name of God from the Hebrew root verb "to be" in the causative sense, hence one definition of Jehovah is "He causes to be," hence the First Cause.

newtonian · Dec 9, 2006

killium - I kind of agree. Space is not nothing, i.e. the space which is expanding apparently faster than light. Dark energy, apparently not nothing, is also involved. And the cause of the stretching out of our universe is also described, with an accurate model, in the Bible: (Isaiah 40:22) . . .There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze. . . The fine gauze, or fabric of space, does include threads and filaments which are stretching out. Both the cause and effect are clearly not nothing - indeed nothing never existed! (pun intended.)

oscar1 · Dec 9, 2006

"Laws don't come from nothing!" That doesn't stick I don't think. If there is nothing, there must already be a law that says "there shall be nothing", without anything prescribing that law at that. And when there is something, there is also a behaviour, which in itself could be construed as being a law, regardless what that behaviour entails.

kyle_baron · Dec 10, 2006

And the cause of the stretching out of our universe is also described, with an accurate model, in the Bible: (Isaiah 40:22) . . .There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze. . . The fine gauze, or fabric of space, does include threads and filaments which are stretching out. Brian Greene in his book Fabric of the Cosmos p.350-351 also describes space on the quantum scale as a lattice or grid (similar to fine gauze). "One explanation that jibes with the explanation for how string theory meshes quantum mechanics and general relativity is that the fabric of space on the Planck scale resembles a lattice or grid, with the "space" between the grid lines being outside the bounds of physical reality. Just as a microscopic ant walking on an ordinary piece of fabric would have to leap from thread to thread, motion through space on ultramicroscopic scales requires discrete leaps from one strand of space to another. Time, also, could have a grainy structure, with individual moments being packed closely together, but not melding into a seamless continuum. In this way of thinking, the concepts of ever smaller space and time intervals would sharply come to an end at the Planck scale. There would be no such thing as a distance shorter than the Planck length or a duration shorter than the Planck time. What I find interesting, is that the word of God can describe space so completely, on the astronomical level as well as the quantum level, using the same words, but in different contexts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

killium · Dec 11, 2006

Oscar, ether, as first described, was prooved to not exist. It doesn't mean that "the concept" is bad. My thought about it's speed was that moving matter and energy have to do so thru space while expanding space has to go thru nothing, thus having a different maximum speed. Newtonian, i'm aware of the very fine tuning of the laws, but i wonder if it necessary implys that it has been "designed". For instance, look at all the biological process in a living animal, everything that happen in a biological entity is very very fine tuned, yet, the fine tuning we see today is the result of billions of years of trial and errors of not so fined tuned process that have been discarded thru the evolution mechanism. I'm opening the door to the possibility of our universe beeing the result of zillions of trys..... I agree it just "push" the problem of creation a couple steps ahead, but isn't it the same thing about God ? Why was there a God in first place ? Did God appeard from nothing ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Dec 11, 2006

Ok, I'm going to probably get scolded for being off topic. But you asked several questions, and I will use my free speech rights, to answer them: Why was there a God in first place ? To test each person's FAITH. Did God appeard from nothing ? That would be the simplest explanation. Scientifically, you could say God appeared from another dimension. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SpeedFreek · Dec 11, 2006

You suggest that the simplest explanation is that God appeared from nothing. Then God created the universe. I wonder if that is the simplest explanation. The suggestion is that God (who must contain the information required to create a universe as well as the information that makes him a god in himself) appeared from nothing, and then proceeded to create the universe. But an even simpler explanation is that the universe itself simply appeared from nothing. Adding God into the equation only complicates it. Which is more likely/plausible? The creation from nothing of an intelligence (which has a complexity all of its own) that holds the information on how to create a universe and then proceeds to do so, or the creation from nothing of a universe? The same applies if you substitute "from nothing" with "from another dimension". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

kmarinas86 · Dec 11, 2006

But an even simpler explanation is that the universe itself simply appeared from nothing. Adding God into the equation only complicates it. Saying that it "appeared" also complicates it. To minimize the claim, we could say: The universe was from nothing. Try to make it simpler than that =P. Belief in a universe from nothing is like the belief in magic. It has no more basis in empirical fact than its antithesis. The idea is "supported" by allegiance to coincidences which in of themselves do not imply it any more than they imply that the universe did not come from nothing. "Nothingness" as a cause is an unintelligible cause. The same is true for magic and superstitions. Nothingness cannot be understood by any rational human being and therefore must be rejected as a nothing whose content is dependently only on our assumptions about it. Nothinology will never be anything discernable by intelligences.

killium · Dec 11, 2006

The universe ? Came from the Big Bang. The Big Bang ? Came from branes collisions. Branes ? Created by God. God ? Comes from another dimension. Other Dimension ? See where i'm going ? We can't conceive an effect without a cause to explain it. What is the ultimate first cause ? And what caused it ? There again :S We have to aggre that either, we can go back in the past infinitly (thus no begining) or, something can appear from nothing. Both ideas looks crazy !! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

paintwoik · Dec 12, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />We can't conceive an effect without a cause to explain it.<hr /></blockquote> No cause is possible or necessary for the likes of nothing. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />What is the ultimate first cause ?<hr /></blockquote> That would be nothing. The universe is actually an attempt at the definition of nothing. It is an incomplete definition, for as we all know ...................... nothing is undefinable. Hence the definition of nothing is in process, and it will take forever to complete that definition. In other words "The universe is the reality of non-existence", and reality is not a physical manifestation, for nothing has no physical characteristics. Nothing is a conceptual entity and if the universe came from nothing, it must be conceptual in it's construct. In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.

alkalin · Dec 12, 2006

Science is needed to deal with measurement of things that have measurement, but since first cause is not measurable, then how can we know the details? There was in the beginning something, and that something cannot be known for sure. There yet is little sign of it in the data. To look beyond the data for further detail is all imagination that springs from overactive brains. No amount of science effort will ever reveal what that something was. To call that something God is about as good as it will ever get as a general idea of the beginning. It is unfortunate that the atheist will reject this and believe as a religion that everything came from nothing, even though it completely violates what we know about reality.

oscar1 · Dec 12, 2006

"It is unfortunate that the atheist will reject this and believe as a religion that everything came from nothing, even though it completely violates what we know about reality." That would of course only apply to atheists who believe that there was nothing to begin with.

SpeedFreek · Dec 12, 2006

I would add that, as an atheist, I do not find it plausible that a universe can come from nothing. It may look to us like it did, but the true explanation is probably out there, somewhere else, a place we have no knowledge of (other dimensions, cyclical universal birth and death and its cause, or whatever else we come up with in the future). What we know about reality only comes from our experience in this universe. The bigger picture may well contain concepts that, to us in this universe, would seem absurd or nonsensical, but may one day be describable and understood. I am prepared to wait for that answer, rather than to choose to believe in something without any proof. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

kyle_baron · Dec 12, 2006

I would add that, as an atheist, I do not find it plausible that a universe can come from nothing. It may look to us like it did, but the true explanation is probably out there, somewhere else, a place we have no knowledge of Nope, It's right in front of your nose. And it's called vacuum energy (or genesis). From a Professional Astronomer: http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11241.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SpeedFreek · Dec 12, 2006

Excellent! Problem solved then. Something can come out of nothing... Well, I will quote the link you posted: _____________________________ Is vacuum genesis compatible with observation? In a limited way. We can create electron-positron and other matter anti-matter pairs out of the vacuum state by providing the vacuum state with enough energy. In a sense, these particles literally appear out of thin air, and as 'virtual particles' they have measurable effects. So, yes, some limited experiments in the production of matter from the vacuum have been confirmed. Presumably, the origin of the universe is only a bigger form of the same experiment using the energy stored in the curved gravitational field of the primordial universe..as the driving spring." _____________________ Ok now hang on. So where did the energy stored in the curved gravitational field of the primordial universe come from? Where did the curved gravitational field come from? Where did the primordial universe come from? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

kmarinas86 · Dec 12, 2006

Science is needed to deal with measurement of things that have measurement, but since first cause is not measurable, then how can we know the details? A first cause implies a "first state", that is to say, a first condition of the universe. If we, for the sake of hypothesis, rationalize a description of this first condition or first state, by what means are we to explain it? When we understand things in terms of determinable physics, assuming that there is only one possible past, we can determine the cause. Causes always come before the events they lead to. But at the moment of the first state/condition, there was no before. Science is very materialistic. It only can practice according to what it can sense. Science only notices things because of animation, whether it is the thing in front of us which is moving or interacting, or whether it is our eyes or other senses which are themselves mobile or extended over a large sensing area. We can only learn if something moves, or if we can have different perspective relative to it. If everything is still, including our mind, we don't learn. The universe is animated, albeit very slowly. To make it worse, when it comes to having the universe in the palm of our hand, we are like the fishes in the ocean trying to grasp the earth. The fishes of the ocean know that there is only the ocean and the sea floor when it comes to geography. But the fishes our wrong. If they were wise, they would know that some large fishes can travel around the fishes' universe in 3 dimensions, despite those who say it would require 4 dimensions! The fishies, if they had science, would know not only that light bends when it traverses the transition between seawater and the sky which they have little awareness of, but also that the radiation that seeps through the top of the ocean comes from a star which they can cannot see unless if the jump out

kmarinas86 · Dec 12, 2006

Nope, It's right in front of your nose. And it's called vacuum energy (or genesis). Energy cannot have 0, nill, or nada, for all energy has. And everything that has, is something, and not nothing. The energy used in random making of particles comes from the vacuum. The vacuum is not nothing if we can make something out of it. It has the appearance of having nothing, but that is just the appearance to primitive people who do not know there is energy even in supposedly void space.

kyle_baron · Dec 13, 2006

Energy cannot have 0, nill, or nada, for all energy has. And everything that has, is something, and not nothing. The energy used in random making of particles comes from the vacuum. Wrong, on both counts. An energy field can have 0 value. The way virtual particles exist, is in waves, for any given area of space. Some of the waves are + while others are -. The net result of the field is 0, nil, or nada. That's why energy has to be added to the field, in order to see the particles manifest themselves from waves. The vacuum is not nothing if we can make something out of it. It has the appearance of having nothing, but that is just the appearance to primitive people who do not know there is energy even in supposedly void space. Exactly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Dec 13, 2006

Ok now hang on. So where did the energy stored in the curved gravitational field of the primordial universe come from? The energy came from a concentrated accumulation of the virtual waves, that quantum tunneled from one dimension, to our dimension. Where did the curved gravitational field come from? It had to come from another dimension, because our universe wasn't born yet. Where did the primordial universe come from? Same answer as above, for the same reason. You forgot the most important question: What set the whole thing off? Flipped the switch? Caused the quantum tunneling? I would have to answer, an eternal God, that exists in another dimension, before our universe came into being. Do you have any other questions, that I might answer? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Nothingness, pre-Big Bang

kyle_baron

Guest

oscar1

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

oscar1

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

oscar1

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

killium

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

killium

Guest

paintwoik

Guest

alkalin

Guest

oscar1

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page