+Both would indicate movement or vibrations, without vibrations matter doesn't exist, there is no mass without vibrations(movement)
Yes - math can be used to describe various aspects of the physical world. That's all. It is used as a descriptive language. Seriously, do you have something else in mind here? Am I missing your intent?
Well, who knows what a God might do! I think this leaves science for the realm of religion. And, in religion you can say absolutely anything you want, right?
Wait! You mean "Peer-Review" isn't a magic phrase that means you must swallow the claims without question? New scientific paper claims octopuses are actually aliens from outer space. Just as I suspected. Eyebrow Raising: Hiding in plain sight.
Whenever I see an article like this, my first question is: "What is the phenomenon they are attempting to explain"? So starting points first. The Planck Era ended at T (Time) equals 10^-43 or one quattuordecillionth of a second after ... what? The answer to that is "After T = 0" At T = 0 the universe did not exist. At the first instant after T=0, the Universe did exist, and every inch of space, every gram of matter and every second of time formed since T=0. Science is the study of the physical universe, it is necessarily bounded at the instant after T=0, though certainly our minds are free to roam past this and draw sensible inferences in order to explain the result that we can study, the Space-Time universe. Anyway, I read through the rest of the article, they are attempting to answer the question "Why does the Universe exist rather than nothing?" It's a very good question, and really there is nothing here that gets us closer to an answer.
I was only replying to @Pixie, who wrote: Can anyone explain why, if infinity cannot exist, that it works in mathematical equations? Because mathematics functions in the abstract realm of which infinity is part. That was my answer. Then you jumped in.
I jumped in when you said: "Because math exists in the abstract domain and by that fact, is not constrained by the concrete world though it can affect it in concrete ways." The reason was that math can't affect our "concrete world". Math does include infinity - for example our whole numbers are an infinite set. Our universe may include infinity in some way, but that would require examining the universe.
There are no infinites in the physical world. The Universe began to exist a finite time ago formed matter at a particular rate so nothing in the universe is infinite, it might be vast to the point where it's difficult to comprehend, but, the fastest object is light, there are no faster processes, and it all started a finite time ago, pick your earliest value of anything, multiple it by the time since T=0 and the speed of light, and while you may get a vast number, it will not be an infinite number.
I think there are almost no theoretical physicists who believe that there was nothing and then there was something. There are those who believe that at T=0 the universe was the size of a soccer ball, for example. That's not some sort of consensus, as I understand it. There are various ideas concerning size, but I don't know of a modern theoretical physicist who believes it started at 0. I think your last question about existence vs. nonexistence is really interesting regardless of that.
Well, science only is able to study the physical world, at T=0 there is no physical world, so this is a hard boundary for science. Mentally we can go beyond that and make reasonable inferences that if logically sound allow us to consider phenomena on the other side of the wall, but, whether this reasoning and inference is done by a Natural Scientist or a Natural Theologian it's still metaphysics and not natural science. Certainly one can use natural science to make these inferences about that which we cannot directly measure, a few examples: Effects in the natural world require causes Except under DNA or Intelligent supervision, processes always flow from complex to more simple. Causes are always greater than their effect.
The expansion of the universe is additive. That is, each increment of space is expanding. The result is that over a gigantic distance, the space between two objects may be increasing at faster than the speed of light, once one adds up the expansion of each increment of space. This is why the size of the universe and the size of the observable universe are not the same. There are objects far enough away that their light can not ever reach us, because the intervening distance is increasing too fast. This is predicted by the general theory of relativity. I think the issue with infinite space has more to do with the geometry of space. Is it bent back on itself in some way? Or, ?? Has that actually been put to bed?
Yes, we get very little evidence from T=0. It has to be implied by information gathered from after that point, I think. But, scientists are gathering evidence from fractional seconds after T=0. Of course, theologians don't need evidence. So, they're good to go! The "complex to simple" rule has constraints. And, I think that affects your other points as well. For one local example, Earth can get more complex, because energy is being added.
I find that really interesting. What lit the T=0 was the confirmation of the expansion of the Universe that flows directly from the equations of the Special Theory of Relativity and the General Theory of Relativity. With an expanding universe, as you go back in time, the universe shrinks down to a theoretical point of infinite density, which is the Standard Big Bang Theory, and since there is no such thing as a point of infinite density in the physical universe, ontologically, at T=0 there is nothing at all. Now how sound is the theory of relativity? We actually had an experiment, and this is from memory, but, I believe it was during the Papa Bush Administration during a fairly unique event with a double quasar, where we took the space shuttle up to take more unimpeded measurements of how much this uniquely heavy gravity event of a double quasar would bend light and sure enough, Einstein's nearly century old theory was confirmed to 32 decimal points. That's an astounding level of confirmation, and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the divergence that starts to occur at point was due to the limits of our measuring instruments rather than a correction needed in his equations. It is one of if not our most verified theory in natural science. So, it's a very solid foundation on which to build sound inferences. It's a very solid inference that expansion of the universe = an absolute beginning. When you see theories seeking to avoid that watch carefully for the mechanism for which they use to stop the contraction and presume an eternal universe existing at whatever size they come up with. As for the idea of a basketball sized universe, depending on your level of interest, you might enjoy studying what's known as the Planck era, this is the smallest meaningful period of time after T=0 and only lasts until T=10^-32 seconds. At that point the entire universe in the Standard Big Bang Theory is presumed to have a diameter smaller than an atom, and all four fundamental forces, gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear force were combined into a single force. Fundamental particles like protons had not formed yet, so there was no light. Unfortunately that also means that no matter how good our telescopes become, we are never going to be able to see this era, because, what we are actually seeing is the light from past events, and no light, no sight. But, we can see a long ways, and the light we are seeing with these massive telescopes are of the universe a long time ago, and the observations of this are wholly consistent with theories of relativity and an expanding universe.
Natural Science came from Natural theology and some of the things they reasoned out from observation and logic to make inferences before we had the instruments to verify them are nothing short of astounding, for example: ancient Arabic philosophers actually reasoned out atomic theory and did a pretty good job approximating the circumference of the earth, which they had also presumed was round, they had also presumed that shadow on the eclipse of the moon was light being blocked from the earth, and of course that shadow is round, and I always get a bit lost on this point, but, they figured out a pretty good assumption of the diameter of the earth doing something with a hole, the shadow in the hole and how much it moved over a set period of time, and this was before reliable clocks, so, my hats off to them. I'm open to feedback and discussion, other than process under the control of DNA or Intelligence, I can't think of any, in fact, it's a straightforward rendering of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Here is a thought experiment that was shared with me to help me understand the 2nd Law, which is that if time is flowing forward, the universe is going from order to chaos. So, if you are in a complete time reversal, it would be very difficult to recognise this, as with everything reversed, everything that you key off to orient yourself is also reversed, so it would be difficult to detect, but, one way that you could detect it using the Second Law, would be with a deck of cards. In our Space Time Universe, which operates under the second law, if you shuffle an ordered deck of cards, the more you shuffle them, the more unordered them become; but, if you are in a time reversal, which would reverse the the Second Law, as you shuffled the deck, they would progressively order themselves by order and suite and you would know that you were in a time reversal. Without the Second Law, we would have a terrible time predicting chemical reactions, but, since we know that things go from complex to simple, all we have to know is what natural reactions reduce order and that's the way natural processes will progress, that is, from order to deterioration. Einstein wondered at this and likened it to a wound clock and then wondered how it came to be wound in the first place. Another way of expressing this is that the natural world always moves from low entropy to increasing entropy, but, I can think of two very solid exceptions, the nourishment that forms a new life in the womb forms from matter that is nearly completely taken to it's near component parts by stomach acids and enzymes, yet, under the instruction of DNA forms into more complex matter. And the living matter that I intake, say plant since we already covered animals, also takes the simpler compounds in the soil and forms them into more complex organic molecules, and that is also under the instruction of DNA. The other mechanism is intelligence. A beaver can take disorganized pile of branches thrown here and there put together a very nice dam with a purpose, and I have had the opportunity to tear one of those apart, the level of organization in a beaver dam far greater than the pile of sticks it starts with, and then of course humans, we make all kinds complex things from simple ingredients using our minds to devise methods and to choose among various contingencies to form or fashion whatever meets the purpose that caused us to undertake the task. I personally cannot think of anything other than the guidance of either DNA or intelligence that makes simpler things more complex, but, maybe I haven't thought hard enough about it! I agree that energy from the sun drives our surface reactions, and well if you consider photosynthesis as a process separate from DNA, that is certainly building complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic ones, but, I had that under the umbrella of DNA driven.
I think you are right about this, but puzzling it out is making my head hurt. Checks this out: https://askanastronomer.org/bhc/faq/2015/11/09/is-space-expanding-faster-than-light/ So his answer is yes, and he adds: And here's a cool animation: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2004/darkenergy/accel_expanding_univ_lg.mov But then this: I'll have to think about this some more, I don't feel like I'm grasping this, but I think the problem is me. Actually I might get it. If each bit of space between two objects is expanding at particular rate, so subliminal, the further apart the objects are, the more bits expanding at this rate there are, so from my perspective of watching the two, they are seperating likely far in excess of the speed of light if there is enough space between them, because from my perspective the each bit of expanding space is multiplicative. That also would explain why galaxies further from us appear to be receding faster, because there is more expanding space between us. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I think I have it now. I think if Space/Time has a beginning it's not infinite, because if it has a beginning point, it's time line has a starting point, which means it's finite. And if the Universe has always existed, there is no need to ask why it exists, because there is no point when it did not exist.
That's the layman talking, like I said, replace it with the correct word. Math is a tool to function in the concrete world, so whatever verb is correct, just insert it.
The quick answer is yes, the Universe appears to be expanding faster than the speed of light. By which we mean that if we measure how quickly the most distant galaxies appear to be moving away from us, that recession velocity exceeds the speed of light. If the galaxies are moving away from us and we are moving away from them at the same time, then surely we are both moving at half the actual speed? That is to say, from an observable place. For example if John and I run away from each other, someone else seeing this will see the distance between us as double the distance each of us has actually run. So each galaxy has not outrun the speed of light, but from a third observable place, it just looks like it.
Those aren't the same. Entropy started out as a physical property of a bunch of like gas or something saying how much energy can u get out of it --it's measured in Watt-hours per degree temperature. It later got used by sociologists who (imho) didn't know what they were talking about but I digress. Time is how long something takes if ur waiting for it, and when I say it speeds up or slows down that's only w/ regard to u and me, not to what we're looking at. U look at ur watch and it takes about a second to take a breath, a minute's the max time u can hold ur breath, and an hour u need to take a pee. That's the amount of time it takes for anyone no matter if they're traveling half the speed or light or not, but if WE timed them we'd say "whoa, that guy just went four years w/o taking a pee!" because time appears slower w/ something when we see it going fast. It gets a bit messy when everything in the universe is moving at the speed of light because there's nobody standing still to look, but somehow two of those photons collided and formed matter. Matter is slower & has clear obvious time we can see a lot easier. howzatt?
Hmmm. According to my dictionary, entropy is a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. So this "system" has to generate heat which then is converted into energy which them drives "work". It is represented in "the second law of thermodynamics which says that entropy always increases with time". IOW in increases OVER/THROUGH time., presumably because over time, things cool down, so there is less thermodynamic energy in the system. NOW if mass is spreading further apart in all directions over time, then there is lees TD energy because there is less mass to interact each with the other, including all forms of energy ie gasses, materials and forces. So as cooling takes place, entropy occurs. If entropy occurs, energy "slows down" . Now if the calculation of time depends on the sped of light, and light is taking longer to travel through a slower and colder universe due to that loss of thermal energy, (photons) and if therefore mechanical energy is becoming less and less (slower) due to the reduction of thermodynamic energy, why doesn't time slow down?
Why must I answer that? Let's tease your demand apart and examine it. i) If the Universe began to exist at a finite time in the past, it is not infinite. You state that in order for i) to be true, It must also be true that: ii) I know what is outside the boundaries of space-time. First, i) appears to be true. If the timeline has a starting point, how can the timeline be infinite? It's akin to saying "This is the boundary of infinity" which makes no sense at all. Secondly, how is the truth of i) dependent on ii)? ii) is bounded by my knowledge, how is reality limited by my knowledge and understanding of it? It's not, real objects exist and have properties entirely independent of my knowledge of them. For example, I was unaware of your existence until I saw one of your posts, however, my lack of awareness of your existence did not preclude you from existing previously to the instant that I became aware of your existence; in fact, I can quite reasonably infer that you existed for many years prior to my knowledge of it.
You just contradicted your first point, which says that because the universe sprang into existence, there was nothing before it. I am suggesting that there is no way of knowing whether what was before it had time as a measure or not. Time exists when change occurs. There must have been a change to cause the BB. If the BB was caused by vibration, then time existed, as vibration cause change. The smallest infinitesimal vibration is change.
I think this is one of the ideas from theoretical physics, but there are others as well. I don't know of any who currently believe that the universe was infinitely small at T=0.
