Physics may not be the entire answer. How do you apply physics to emotion or thought? Does physics apply to non physical things?
I read that the time to restart the universe with another Big Bang is 400 trillion years and has been happening forever.
Yes, one can say that mass warps space-time. But, that hasn't caused any objects to start flying around at light speed. Light speed refers to a very serious speed limit. It's not changed by gravity like that. Yes, there are theoretical physicists who claim their model of how this universe works would result in light speed travel being possible. But, they aren't getting any agreement from that field of science and they aren't finding any way to test their models in the real world. It's a pretty good rule of thumb based on progress to date to say that if some model supports light speed travel then the model is wrong.
OK, but let's remember that no scientist would state an idea like that without pointing out that it is based on assumptions that humans can't test, at least for now.
Who claims emotion and thought aren't physical? Calculating emotions is an important feature of what our brains do. And, the same goes for thought.
And right there we come to the ultimate question...where did "it" all come from? "It" being, the substance of the universe in the form of energy, forces or matter. There must have been "something" to start the imbalances that created the Big Bang because if everything was in balance, there would be eternal stasis. So how did "it" get there?
I think nature will give up a lot of her secrets, but that one, the big one, she will be forever tight-lipped.
There are theoretical physicists/cosmologists who have theories that seem consistent and show even just this universe to be infinite. I think it can't be ruled out that the fundamentals from which this universe emerged are also infinite. Of course it's incredibly hard or impossible to gather evidence on that, so I think "I don't know" is the best answer to questions about what came "before".
Yes, so "before" is problematic, I think. I often put parentheses around that. I'm not a physicist. I think physicists do have answers, but they also point to problems with time that have not been solved. It does seem reasonable to me to talk about the environment from which this universe sprang.
Why does the universe exist? It all started when advanced humans, at least I think they're called humans, received a gift of technology from aliens that let them build a universe simulation. It was just supposed to be a basic physics simulator. But then they got the idea that they could connect some people into the simulation and interact with it. They made some changes to the simulation so that humans existed inside the simulation, and they put in simulated versions of humans who existed in the outside world. Their goal was to come and go from the simulation with a minimum of effort. And, to see how humans would act in the past, in a more primitive state. However, this simulation has advanced so far that the humans outside of the simulation now want to keep it running to see how far we can get. At least for now.
Yes! That actually happened. Scientists Create 3,000 TB Simulation of the Universe You Can Download (futurism.com)
IMO no because it is the "before" that became the "now". I don't think we know if space and time existed before. I can't imagine it didn't because if an event occurs (the big Bang) then it has to occur in time and space. Something is changing then to change to reality now. One theory is that vibration in the force fields (string theory very simplified) unbalanced the near static character of "before"...so time must have existed. Space must also have existed in order to "house" whatever was there. I just really have a hard time imaging "nothing" that suddenly becomes "something".
Maybe it doesn't There was a man upon the stair A little man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today Gee I wish he'd go away Latest calculations say that the Universe fulfills all the mathematical requirements to be a simulation of itself.
What if something and nothing are the same thing. It is the empty space that gives a bowl it's usefulness. The usefulness of a room is in the empty space.
That was my point, but I qualified it by stating that it is because solely it is possible, given enough time. But, my proposition was based on infinity, which hasn't been proven. However, in my view, infinity does exist, still, in the abstract, whether or not in the concrete universe it has been proven. I mean, how can it not be?
However, they are pondering possibilities (yes?), however theoretical and wild they may be, which, in my view, no big paradigm shifting discovery is discovered without at least pondering the seemingly impossible first. As for SOL being impossible, that is true in the linear mode of travel, and here I'm talking about non linear, warping space, that sort of thing.
