Cavediver writes:
Actually, that is the whole point. There is no "cause" outside that which already exists. If you demand a cause for what happened at T=0, then it could be said that it is the surrounding space-time at T>0. At this point in the Universe, we essentially have what we call a Euclidean region of space-time - its "evolution" is generated elliptically rather than hyperbolically, and is determined by consistency rather than causality - entirely analogously with elliptic vs hyperbolic 2nd order partial differential equations. And so no cause beyond consistency is required. Nothing is requried other than the Universe itself. This is an extremely elegant and aesthetic concept. Of course, this is not some wild guess. The above is simply a limited description of the results of very serious quantum cosmological calculations
.
You do realize that this statement is itself theoretical and contradictory all in one swoop (making a swift diving attack). Your initial statement is categorical beyond belief. How in the world can you make such an absolute statment, you ape like creature limited to a relative routine galaxy. Its theoretical and not testable or demonstratable, from any "real" standpoint. Calculations, estimations and speculations do not always equate to actualization when speaking about the unknown or undemonstratable properties. You might as well be speculating about the "theory of relativity", which can only be theororized not "truely" demonstrated. So when you state:
As I hope you are starting to appreciate, layman commonsense and logic are utterly irrelevant. When it comes to physics, layman commonsense was thrown out over 100 years ago. It was replaced with theories that, no matter how counterintuitive, were consistently demonstrated to be the most accurate realisations of our Universe ever constructed.
Yours are still only theories, due to the "fact" that you cannot "demonstrate" them from any real standpoint. I would remind you that you are the one who stated:
something other than the Universe with 'intelligence' 'created' the entire Universe; where 'intelligence' and 'created' are concepts that as far as we are otherwise aware, apply almost solely to some ape-like creatures on a small planet orbiting a dull star, in the outer reaches of a very average galaxy.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Are your theories and speculation limited to your understanding and the perspective you have at present. If they are not, simply demonstrate them to me in actuality and not in theory. Show me (dont just theorize)what is outside T=0. Or "show me" that the universe actually has no boundary aside from theoretical concepts. Theories change with the passage oftime and new information. What is "completely" acceptable today is disregarded later as nearly unreliable and inaccurate, often times. This ofcourse is completely acceptable and a good practice if we keep this objective behavior in mind at present as well. Insisting that vertually untestable theories are absolute in character is simply not a consistent or valid way to proceed in such discussions.
Actually, that is the whole point. There is no "cause" outside that which already exists. If you demand a cause for what happened at T=0, then it could be said that it is the surrounding space-time at T>0. At this point in the Universe, we essentially have what we call a Euclidean region of space-time - its "evolution" is generated elliptically rather than hyperbolically, and is determined by consistency rather than causality - entirely analogously with elliptic vs hyperbolic 2nd order partial differential equations. And so no cause beyond consistency is required.
Your statement is contradictory because it starts with the false idea that there is nothing outside that which t already exists, except more space, a proposition which you cannot demonstrate outside of a very "eloquent and aesthetic (beautiful) "concept". You are assuming that that which exists before T=0 is simply more of the same. It may indeed be as you state, however, it is equally possible that it is not. The point is two-folled. No test is actually possible to demonstrate it either way and it is equally logical to assume that a cause if required. So your accusation that Logic and commonsesne cannot be applied before physics, is even itself contradictory, because you are only speculating from the best possible calculations of some thing you could not possibly test in the first place. You are applying your logic and commensense , (poorly I might add) before during and after the application of speculative theory, during the theory and after theory.
If I am not mistaken it is you fellas that contend for a "model" that can only be tested in the face of actuality, correct? You say if such is not present it is not "science", correct. In other words you can only test theories to the extend of your association with existing priniples relative to yourself. Anything outside obsevation or our immediate surrounding can only be considered a theory or speculation, not absoluteor demonstratable reality, correct?
Secondly it is contradictory because you are ASSUMING there is no cause required, another assumption you cannot demonstrate. You replacing actual demonstratable fact with assumption and then concluding there is no cause required. The absolute conclusion that no cause is necessary has to be besed in actual fact not theory. For example you state:
It falls into a similar picture, but rather than using a Euclidean region of space-time to smooth over the potential discontinuity at the singularity, we simply map the t=0 region to some later T. So causation remains around T=0 becasue we are still in Lorentzian space-time (and "evolving" parabolically) but now our Cauchy data (i.e, that which causes that at T=0) is simply to the far future of T=0. We simply wrap the Universe round as one huge time-machine, and again simple self-consistency generates our internal evolution. So again, no external causes.
I am nearly sure when you put this in English (ha ha), it will equate to the fact you are theorizing about things and cannot demonstrate it in reality. Do us a favor and relate this information in usable language that will allow an average person to evaluate it in connect ion with the context of the discussion. Thanks.
Wonderful. Now please take me to this and show it to me outside you mind. "We simply wrap T=0 to some other time". Ofcourse, this is the exact problem if you are going to "warp" (attribute) the beginning (T=0) to some other time or place, you circumvent the possiblity that it was created instead of simply being more of this or that.
So causation remains around T=0 becasue we are still in Lorentzian space-time (and "evolving" parabolically) but now our Cauchy data (i.e, that which causes that at T=0) is simply to the far future of T=0. We simply wrap the Universe round as one huge time-machine, and again simple self-consistency generates our internal evolution. So again, no external causes.
Lets see what this THEORY sounds like in English, ok? Presently though, I would think that "our Cauchy data, (i.e that which causes that at time zero) is simply to the far future of T=0> We simply wrap the Universe round as one huge time machine.......", etc, etc, etc, indicates that you are stuggling for an answer to the explanation of T=0. There is a great deal of circular (no pun intended) reasoning taking place. I ofcourse will wait for a simply english translation though to see if I am correct.
cavediver writes
something other than the Universe with 'intelligence' 'created' the entire Universe; where 'intelligence' and 'created' are concepts that as far as we are otherwise aware, apply almost solely to some ape-like creatures on a small planet orbiting a dull star, in the outer reaches of a very average galaxy.
Is this what you want to be taught in the classroom?
I suppose it will always be true that scientists, in this instance a phycisist, make poor philosophers. Logic would dictate and reason would corroborate that it matters little where intelligence resides to the deduction of physical principles or properties. In this statement you have demonstrated my point beyond any doubt that your conclusions are limited to your surroundings and understanding of the entire universe and that they can be considered little less than theories. You stuck your proverbial foot in you proverbial mouth.
What we would like to see taught is the only other logical possiblity to the idea that the universe is a product of itself or eternal in its make up. The premise that an intelligent force eternal in character created a universe that is clearly contingent for its existence on something else, has nothing to do with theology. It is a logical proposition clearly deducable from physical properties.
PaulK writes:
No, it simply contradicts your opinions. Hawking does not accept that the universe had a beginning in the sense that you mean.
Fair enough. Then state in simple readable english and a couple of simple sentences the sense in which he does believe the universe had a beginning. In other words explain how the universe can be Finite or had a start some 15 billion years ago. Was it (our universe)there before it started?
As I pointed out, your assertion was untrue, since Hawking in fact DID talk about testing the hypothesis, with no hint that it was impossible
Your assuming that I was saying no tests were conducted, I did not. I said there is no way to test your test against the actual reality of the universes ultimate properties, thats why these things are called theories. The theories will change as more information comes available. Testing a hypothesis is not the same as testing irrefutable data. Data such as the law of gravity is not hypothetical in character, therefore its results are actually measurable. Other things as these theories are not as simple and explainable and so they remain theoretical.
Onifre(pyro) writes;
Removing the singularity does not remove the BB. The singularity is an mathematically derived concept. It is not a thing that produces universes. In Hawkings' No-Boundary theory the BB is still the beginning of our universe in real time. Before the BB there is no space therefore there is no time, or rather theres no real time before the BB.
Is your implication then, that nothing as nothing existed before T=0. What exacally are you saying was there before the BB, if no space and time, then what?
Bertot writes:
Since "Imaginary time" cannot actually be demonstrated as really different from anytime, this principle as a third possibility cannot be considered as such
Onfire writes
Thanks for your arm chair mussings. I'd like to see if you can give a better explanation as to how you come to that conclusion without actually understanding the physic, other than 'this just can't be right'.
The physic my friend is a test of a hypothesis. It cannot be demonstrated in actuality. Since time is not a not real property like space and matter one can only speculate (get it, speculate) of its effects and possibilites in realtion to reality. Theorizing even from a physics standpoint is still just theorizing. For example, Physics can only theroize from the best possible information what produced the BB in the first place, it cannot actually show you what its source was in actuality.
Quote from link:
Imaginary numbers can be used to help explain tunnelling, a quantum mechanical process in which, for instance, a particle can spontaneously pass through a barrier. In trying to unify general relativity with quantum mechanics, physicists used a related idea in which they would measure time with imaginary numbers instead of real numbers. By using this so-called imaginary time, physicists Stephen Hawking and Jim Hartle showed that the universe could have been born without a singularity.
"Could have been born". A theory about a theory.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Now, the 3-D universe could be unbounded in the same way, that no matter which way you go in 3 directions, you can just keep going around and around. But this doesn't mean that it is infinite just like the surface of the Earth is not infinite.
"could Be". Theoretical, correct?
You are applying your own personal concepts of finite and infinite to this. In physics finite and infinite are mathematical expressions...
...which cannot be manipulated to represent theological concepts of eternity. These are mathematical expressions that represent a specific theory, you can't just twist it to fit your concept of infinity.
Mathmatical expression as you deem them, while accurate in and of themself only offer possible solutions to theories, where there is not enough information to corroborate an exact conclusion. Observation, experience,logic and commonsesne identify certain and in this instance the conclusions that only a limited number of possiblites could be involved. Therefore your estimations that "theological concepts of eternity" do not qualify are inaccurate again and again. It has nothing to do with religiousity, it has everything to do with actual expessions that conform to reality, thedefinitons of Finite or Infinite , nothwithstanding.
The proposal deals with physics, it expresses it's concepts mathematically. Eternity is a made-up religious concept that is basically meaningless outside of theological conversations
Let me help you out a little more fella. Mathmatics is limited to an admittedly finite exsistence. It can only expalin that in which it is contained. If there is a point at which the "laws of physics" break down it follows that there is a place where they cannot be applied to explain the properties of things. Or atleast there is some other law that would expalin its properties different from the present ones. Physics is limited, it is not an explanation for all things everywhere in all places, at all times.
Eternality made up or not and, in any way you wish to describe physical properties are the logical conclusion of an obvious exsistence. Put what ever term on eternality you wish you will still come up with the very real conclusion that matter is self existent, or limited to only one other possibilty, that of an eternal creator. theological conversations do not produce such a conclusion, reality does.
It no more bothers me than any other religious concept of the nature of reality...it just simply lacks any evidence outside of the subjective interpretation, therefore I just ignore it.
As I have now demonstrated you are absolutely wrong in you conclusions and estimations.
Bertot writes:
This is making way to much of a simple principle. This would be like saying that the water in the top of the glass is somehow different in character and nature than the water in the bottom of the glass. The simple principle is that its just time if you are here on earth or in deep space. Relative perhaps, but time nonetheless.
onfire writes
suggest trying to understand the theory before you write stuff like this. This does not make sense to me perhaps you can clarify it a bit more.
Lets go to your next statement to help.
They are perhaps 2 different words, with 2 seperate definitions, but if we are speaking about the universe space and time are inseparable. You can't be in space without time, and there is no time without space.
Your almost correct. Space is real and matter is real, time is not an actual thing. What you call time are simply the effects of space and matter, which you deem as time. As such there are not time lines, imaginary time or lines of time that intersect with a direct time line, etc. There are only the effects of an expanding space or results of matter deferintiations or changes. As such, time lines or imaginary time or what ever else you want to call it are theoretical speculations that can only be tested in mathmatical equations but not testable in actuality or reality. The effects of space in its entirity are exacally the same all the "time" in all places of space. Ofcourse a different place in the entirity would give you a different perspective of space and "time". Yet in no since are you in the past or future, just in another location with a different perspective.
Another way of expressing it is that there is only the present. The present is the only real property even in space. The is no past, present and future existing simultaneouly in different deminsions. It ofcourse can be theorized with the application of mathmatical expression, however it cannot be demonstrated in reality. In other words if I am standing on one side of the earth and viewing the night sky another person "said" to be in another time zone is ahead or behind me. In reality he is in the same space and "time" as myself only with a different perspective.
In the same way mathmatical expressions (physics)if you will lends terms and ideas that offer "possible" solutions to THEORIES, that are concievable in theory but may not be applicable to actuality or reality.
If you think of a no-boundary universe in the same sense that you think of the Earth, as a spherical object, then the eterity you seek would be you walking on this planet in a straight line, never being bounded by anything, just a continuous walk...for eternity. And yet the Earth is finite...are you kinda getting it?
I fully understand what is being "theorized" here. Its simply that if one deems it as having a starting point or deem it as finite verses a continuous undistrurbed process, it matters little if its boundaries are boundless, it could have been "designed" that way and for that purpose, yet it started somewhere. If my concepts of "start" or beginning are not in line with what hawkins is saying, then enlighten me on what I am missing atleast in that respect. Started, began about 15 millon years ago, in what respect and how?
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
What the hell do you think we are discussing? Do you enjoy making yourself a laughing-stock?
™ Version 4.2