Jump to content
disillusioned

Something rather than nothing

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Justus said:

'

Well, time began when matter emerged into existence

 

The 'big bang' is said to be the result of all space, time, matter and energy that exists in our universe rapidly expanded from a highly condensed state.  So time did exist before the big bang, yet it has been 14.5 billion years since the big bang, if you subscribe to the Catholic doctrine of the primordial atom published in scientific form.  However, the hypothesis doesn't address how the primordial atom originated, only how it changed into the current form.

 

(embolden added)

 

No!   It depends upon which of the many Big Bang versions you are referring to. In the version I explained above the Big Bang beginning was the originator of both time and space. You might refer back to my related explanation to have an understanding of how this could happen, and how accordingly time could not have possibly existed before this beginning. If one equates time to change, then you could logically say that there could not possibly have been any change before the first change, or time before the beginning of time. This, again relates to this particular Big Bang version. As I said before, I believe the Big Bang model is almost entirely wrong, that the beginning of reality was far simpler. But this explanation of the beginning of reality, and of both time and space also is the same as my own explanation of the beginnings of time and space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Justus said:

 

Actually my comment was that there is no reason for a clock when it can not be turned back to 0.  I guess the same reason the linear measure of time needs the cyclical motion of mass in order to be known.  If you don't have a cyclical motion of mass, being that expanse between two points then you can't measure time which is the reason you don't need a clock if it never can return to zero.

 

I think I understand what you are saying here. Understand that the clock I referred to was metaphorical.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientific American’s latest issue has an article that addresses the nature of existence; The Search for Truth in Physics.

The entire issue is interesting.  Why we believe lies, etc.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa/2019/09-01/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TEG said:

Scientific American’s latest issue has an article that addresses the nature of existence; The Search for Truth in Physics.

The entire issue is interesting.  Why we believe lies, etc.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa/2019/09-01/

 

Yeah, but to find out what they think could be the truth, what are lies, and which they think are uncertainties, I have to buy the September issue since this info is not online. I could find the latest issue in the library but I don't mind buying the September issue to find out their opinion. IMO there is very little truth in modern physics concerning logical explanations of it. I'm pretty sure there are few lies involved. Maybe some uncertainties, but instead most of it is simply wrong concerning the conceptual aspects of it, maths aside. Just have to buy the magazine and see what they think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2019 at 8:32 AM, disillusioned said:

 

I think I understand what you are saying here. Understand that the clock I referred to was metaphorical.

 

In all my answers I never really answered your basic question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"  The answer is simply that absolutely nothing is not a possible state of reality for the entire universe. When I say nothing, I mean absolutely nothing of substance, energy, capacity, or potential.  If it were possible then the reality which we now observe would have to have come from that nothing,. Something from absolutely nothing is impossible IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

In all my answers I never really answered your basic question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"  The answer is simply that absolutely nothing is not a possible state of reality for the entire universe. When I say nothing, I mean absolutely nothing of substance, energy, capacity, or potential.  If it were possible then the reality which we now observe would have to have come from that nothing,. Something from absolutely nothing is impossible IMO.

 

I tend to agree with this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2019 at 9:32 AM, pantheory said:

  I agree that the rotational motion of fermions (atomic particles), in your words the cyclical motion of mass, is the primary motivator of time. But time can also be equated to a change of any kind.

 

LOL, that wasn't exactly what I said but I wish I had because you actually said it better that I did.   

 

Yet the cyclical motion of mass is not time, but rather the way we measure time.  But more importantly, time is reflective of the finite nature of the universe which is another way of saying it is quantifiable.  

 

On 9/11/2019 at 9:32 AM, pantheory said:

But time can also be equated to a change of any kind.

 

Exactly, anything which changes in substance or form has a finite nature and the characteristic of the finite is it quantifiability 

 

On 9/11/2019 at 9:32 AM, pantheory said:

But the initial motivator of time which accordingly would be the cause of all other changes, would be the innate spinning of fermions, in your words "the cyclical motion of mass."

 

By cyclical motion I  am referring unto the recurrent motion having the same duration.  That period from the beginning of motion until it returns to the same position is the measure of time. 
 

However the motivator of time is the finite nature of the universe.  Since the nature of the universe is finite, that represents that every living thing in the universe is reflective of that nature.  Having a beginning of existence, all living things will have an end of existence therefore time is merely the measurement of that period.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Justus said:

 

LOL, that wasn't exactly what I said but I wish I had because you actually said it better that I did.   

 

Yet the cyclical motion of mass is not time, but rather the way we measure time.  But more importantly, time is reflective of the finite nature of the universe which is another way of saying it is quantifiable.  

 

 

Exactly, anything which changes in substance or form has a finite nature and the characteristic of the finite is it quantifiability 

 

 

By cyclical motion I  am referring unto the recurrent motion having the same duration.  That period from the beginning of motion until it returns to the same position is the measure of time. 
 

However the motivator of time is the finite nature of the universe.  Since the nature of the universe is finite, that represents that every living thing in the universe is reflective of that nature.  Having a beginning of existence, all living things will have an end of existence therefore time is merely the measurement of that period.  

 

IMO you have some good ideas in this posting :) and much of it I agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is becoming a bit murky, in my opinion. Terms like "finite", "duration", "cyclical", "beginning", "end" , etcetera are all inextricably linked to conceptions of time. It boots nothing,  as far as I can see,  to go on about how time reduces to cyclical motion of particles (or whatever), because cyclical implies that at some time there will be repetition. For that matter, repetition itself requires an implicit reliance on some sort of conception of time. I say this in spite of the fact that I tend to agree that time is inherently a part of space, the universe, matter, what have you. But having said that, we need to be careful that we don't just throw words around to no actual effect.

 

Perhaps we lack the vocabulary to discuss these ideas properly. I tend to think that if this is the case, then it is probably because we aren't reallt equipped to do away with the notion of time. Maybe this is because time is actually indispensible. Maybe it's because we just need different words to discuss these ideas. Or perhaps it's because these are ideas that don't or can't actually make sense to us no matter we might phrase them. There is no reason,  after all,  to think that the human mind,  evolved as it is, should be capable of truly comprehending the intricacies of ultimate reality. What we're good at it describing how things seem to us. But I don't see that we can do this without some reliance on the idea of time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, disillusioned said:

This is becoming a bit murky, in my opinion. Terms like "finite", "duration", "cyclical", "beginning", "end" , etcetera are all inextricably linked to conceptions of time. It boots nothing,  as far as I can see,  to go on about how time reduces to cyclical motion of particles (or whatever), because cyclical implies that at some time there will be repetition. For that matter, repetition itself requires an implicit reliance on some sort of conception of time. I say this in spite of the fact that I tend to agree that time is inherently a part of space, the universe, matter, what have you. But having said that, we need to be careful that we don't just throw words around to no actual effect.

 

Perhaps we lack the vocabulary to discuss these ideas properly. I tend to think that if this is the case, then it is probably because we aren't reallt equipped to do away with the notion of time. Maybe this is because time is actually indispensable. Maybe it's because we just need different words to discuss these ideas. Or perhaps it's because these are ideas that don't or can't actually make sense to us no matter we might phrase them. There is no reason,  after all,  to think that the human mind,  evolved as it is, should be capable of truly comprehending the intricacies of ultimate reality. What we're good at it describing how things seem to us. But I don't see that we can do this without some reliance on the idea of time. 

 

I understand. A type of cyclical motion, a frequency cycle,  is how we presently measure time using an atomic clock. Cyclical motion is based upon atomic spin. 

 

Today cesium clocks measure frequency, cycles of spin, to an accuracy of 2-3 parts in 10 to the 14th power. This is 0.00000000000002 Hz (cycles).; this corresponds to a time measurement accuracy of 2 nanoseconds per day, or one second in 1,400,000 years. It is the most accurate measurement and determination of a unit of time,  a second (time), that mankind has yet devised. Finite of course means limited time. Beginning means the start of time, but as far as we know in physics there will be no ending of time. Time is simply a measurement of change of some kind like a sun dial, hour glass, water clock etc.

 

The most accurate measurement of time to date is a cesium clock. I'm not too fond of Einstein's space-time idea but it is a good concept for his equations of General Relativity. The idea is that location is not definite, its only relative to ones surroundings. So ones location is therefore x,y,z, at any particular point in time relative to your surroundings since everything has relative motion including your surroundings. So x,y,z stands for the coordinates length, width, and height relative to a defined point of origin. We add 't' to it becomes x,y,z,t. This is the location of something in space relative to a point of origin at a point in time. As time changes so does the values of the distances x,y,z in space.  This is the essence of the meaning of space-time. This is all simple stuff that most people could understand if it is properly explained. Hope that's what I did :) . I think this stuff is poorly explained online, for the most part. If there is a part of it that doesn't make sense to you, ask questions if you are interested in further explanations. 

 

Again I equate the human concept of time to change, nothing more than this.  Looking up the common definition of time one sees that time is something that a clock measures. I don't think physics does a better job of explaining it. The problem in physics is that there is no consensus understanding of the essence of time. 😏

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

I understand. A type of cyclical motion, a frequency cycle,  is how we presently measure time using an atomic clock. Cyclical motion is based upon atomic spin. 

 

Today cesium clocks measure frequency, cycles of spin, to an accuracy of 2-3 parts in 10 to the 14th power. This is 0.00000000000002 Hz (cycles).; this corresponds to a time measurement accuracy of 2 nanoseconds per day, or one second in 1,400,000 years. It is the most accurate measurement and determination of a unit of time,  a second (time), that mankind has yet devised. Finite of course means limited time. Beginning means the start of time, but as far as we know in physics there will be no ending of time. Time is simply a measurement of change of some kind like a sun dial, hour glass, water clock etc.

 

The most accurate measurement of time to date is a cesium clock. I'm not too fond of Einstein's space-time idea but it is a good concept for his equations of General Relativity. The idea is that location is not definite, its only relative to ones surroundings. So ones location is therefore x,y,z, at any particular point in time relative to your surroundings since everything has relative motion including your surroundings. So x,y,z stands for the coordinates length, width, and height relative to a defined point of origin. We add 't' to it becomes x,y,z,t. This is the location of something in space relative to a point of origin at a point in time. As time changes so does the values of the distances x,y,z in space.  This is the essence of the meaning of space-time. This is all simple stuff that most people could understand if it is properly explained. Hope that's what I did :) . I think this stuff is poorly explained online, for the most part. If there is a part of it that doesn't make sense to you, ask questions if you are interested in further explanations. 

 

Yes, I understand all this. I think it's relatively straightforward. The problem is that this is a description of how we measure time, not a description of how time is generated

 

Yes, we can define one second in terms of cyclical atomic motion, but this assumes that time already exists. If one second is "the amount of time that X process takes to occur" then there must actually be an amount of time that X takes to occur. We can't obtain time in this way, only measure it.

 

3 hours ago, pantheory said:

Again I equate the human concept of time to change, nothing more than this.  Looking up the common definition of time one sees that time is something that a clock measures. I don't think physics does a better job of explaining it. The problem in physics is that there is no consensus understanding of the essence of time. 😏

 

But the idea of change also relies on the notion of time. Unless there is time,  nothing can change. 

 

I think the concept of time is just something that we're stuck with whether we like it or not. Attempts to describe how time is generated seem to fall into circularity. Time is "something that a clock measures", but what is a clock save for "a device that measures time"?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so very deepity. Seems to me that change and movement exist but "time" is nothing more than an artificial grid we put over everything in order to be able to talk about it. We are good at coming up with measuring systems but the measurement isn't the reality. Inches, feet and meters don't exist anywhere other than in our agreement that they do. Hours, minutes and nanoseconds are our invention. The wavelength our eyes perceive as the color blue is in reality only a wavelength but it has a name because we perceive it in a certain way. With nobody to "see" it there is no color, no light, either. Wealth is how many sheep or cattle you have, the suitability of your dwelling, not dollars; that's just how we measure, keep accounts and talk about it. I think our symbols and measurements are useful to us, but not real in the sense the moon orbits the Earth whether we observe and measure it or not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, florduh said:

This is so very deepity. Seems to me that change and movement exist but "time" is nothing more than an artificial grid we put over everything in order to be able to talk about it. We are good at coming up with measuring systems but the measurement isn't the reality. Inches, feet and meters don't exist anywhere other than in our agreement that they do. Hours, minutes and nanoseconds are our invention. The wavelength our eyes perceive as the color blue is in reality only a wavelength but it has a name because we perceive it in a certain way. With nobody to "see" it there is no color, no light, either. Wealth is how many sheep or cattle you have, the suitability of your dwelling, not dollars; that's just how we measure, keep accounts and talk about it. I think our symbols and measurements are useful to us, but not real in the sense the moon orbits the Earth whether we observe and measure it or not.

 

This is the essence of the epistemic vs ontological distinction I pointed to earlier. The way I see it, science is an epistemic description of ontologically objective entities. Systems of measurement allow us to express epistemically objective truths. They allow us to describe what is actually there, and to do useful work. But they are not themselves ontologically objective.

 

When I say that I think the concept of time is the kind of thing that we just can't do without I'm not saying that I think time necessarily exists as such; I'm saying that we can't make much sense of anything without the assumption that it exists. So I think it has to exist epistemically, otherwise we can't do much of anything, but it doesn't have to exist ontologically. It is indeed a bit like money, except that we don't need the concept of money in the way that we need the concept of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 10:05 PM, disillusioned said:

Yes, I understand all this. I think it's relatively straightforward. The problem is that this is a description of how we measure time, not a description of how time is generated

 

Yes, we can define one second in terms of cyclical atomic motion, but this assumes that time already exists. If one second is "the amount of time that X process takes to occur" then there must actually be an amount of time that X takes to occur. We can't obtain time in this way, only measure it.

 

But the idea of change also relies on the notion of time. Unless there is time,  nothing can change. 

 

I think the concept of time is just something that we're stuck with whether we like it or not. Attempts to describe how time is generated seem to fall into circularity. Time is "something that a clock measures", but what is a clock save for "a device that measures time"?

(embolden added)

 

(your quote): The problem is that this is a description of how we measure time, not a description of how time is generated

 

Yes, I agree. As I discussed above, the universe had to have potential energy in its beginning for it to evolve into something else, and for the human concept of time as an interval of change to be envisioned and defined. So the universe accordingly had to start with a dimensional substance (or just energy in some models) of some elemental sort, and for time to continue in this way matter must have had, and continues to have potential energy within it. In my own model this is a type of winding of fermions.  Fermions are the atomic particles which have spin, protons, electrons, and neutrons. In this model spin is not just a characteristic of these particles, it is what they actually do, just like a top. This is the same way that physicists understand and observe atomic and molecular physical spin, but speculate as to its cause without any consensus understanding of it. In my own model these particles both wind up and unwind at the same time. The unwinding torsion of fermions accordingly is the physical characteristic and dimension of matter that generates time, a kind of particle torsion.

 

As to modern physics there is no consensus as to what time is or what drives it. In my own model all is relatively simple. But as to possible observations of this, electrons, for instance, are far too small to look at any internal parts. In modern physics they deal with them as zero-dimensional point particles. No internal parts of them or solid surface has ever been observed because of their infinitesimal size. But their description as point particles is all the understanding that is necessary for their calculations concerning electron interactions with other particles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, pantheory said:

As I discussed above, the universe had to have potential energy in its beginning for it to evolve into something else,

 

By the statement 'in it's beginning' are you inferring to a specific point  at which the universe came into physical existence or are you referring unto 'the beginning' like written in Genesis?    

 

The reason I ask is I am a little confused by the inference of potential energy  since the beginning of the universe would necessitate that space would have first appeared since matter requires space in order to physically exist.   So there first must be space for energy to emerge into existence within right? 

 

While energy is commonly defined as being the potential work, or ability of self-animation by mass, it is held that energy is transferred between atoms.  While nothing suggests that energy exists without mass but they do claim that energy can occupy space separate from mass.  However,  nothing indicates that energy could exist prior to mass, so that would mean that mass would would have also be present at the time energy emerged into space albeit separate from mass wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Justus said:

 

By the statement 'in it's beginning' are you inferring to a specific point  at which the universe came into physical existence or are you referring unto 'the beginning' like written in Genesis?    

 

The reason I ask is I am a little confused by the inference of potential energy  since the beginning of the universe would necessitate that space would have first appeared since matter requires space in order to physically exist.   So there first must be space for energy to emerge into existence within right? 

 

While energy is commonly defined as being the potential work, or ability of self-animation by mass, it is held that energy is transferred between atoms.  While nothing suggests that energy exists without mass but they do claim that energy can occupy space separate from mass.  However,  nothing indicates that energy could exist prior to mass, so that would mean that mass would would have also be present at the time energy emerged into space albeit separate from mass wouldn't it?

(embolden added)

 

According to my model the universe never came into physical existence. This may be a difficult concept for some people to understand. This is because everything that we know of had a cause, something that existed before it. But according to this model, matter, time and space only has had a limited time to their existence; there was no such thing as time before their existence. This would be because the changes perpetuated by this beginning entity created time and space resulting in our concepts which now define them. Substance with potential pre-existed both time and space yet this substance accordingly had no source cause. One could say it pre-existed separate from time and space for an instant. An instant of time is like a  photograph in which no changes are occurring. They are just reference points within time which science call time frames. In this case this instant would be the beginning time frame and reference point. If you can understand this then you can understand the concept of the beginning of the universe according to the model I'm explaining and the related model  of the Big Bang beginning having the same concepts.

 

Accordingly there never could have been a time before the beginning entity any more than there could have been a change prior to the first change. In this context the word "before" would have no meaning. The beginning entity by its first reaction to its own innate internal potential energy, accordingly created time and space by its own action. We can now equate an interval of change as being the quintessential element that defines time. By a change in form the volume which matter first occupied also would have changed. Space can be defined as the volumes which matter occupies. When there are two separate substantive entities space can be defined as the volume these entities occupy, as well the distance between them. For three or more entities we could define space as the volume which they collectively occupy which encompasses them, their internal space and the distances between them. There would be no such thing as space, time or gravity outside the confines and influences of substance, matter and field, since the existence of substantive matter defines time, space, and gravity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justus,

 

(Your quote and question) "However,  nothing indicates that energy could exist prior to mass, so that would mean that mass would would have also be present at the time energy emerged into space albeit separate from mass wouldn't it?"

 

The only example that I am aware of where energy turns into mass is when two apposingly directed high amplitude gamma rays (similar to x-rays) interact whereby they can create an electron positron pair that stay in existence. Right now I think the energy-first model of the Big Bang may have as many supporters as those that support a beginning big bang physical entity. I am not a fan of either version since I believe the Big Bang model is almost entirely wrong.

 

In any event I'm not a fan of any energy-first model since IMO all energy has as its source a substance of some kind. So accordingly the zero-point energy field would have at its source the interactions and motions of a physical substantive field of some kind. My own model hypothetically explains this entity and its characteristics in some detail providing related reasoning and asserted evidence for the proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.