Concept of time

Craterloads said:
Lets just say for example its just energy (not sure if thats even actually proven), energy is still something and not absolute nothing according to the big crunch.
Click to expand...

It IS proven, Craterloads, experimentally and theoretically, and it's been well tested. True, energy is still something, but what we've established now is that matter can be created from no matter, right? So we're a step further towards making the big bang seem plausible.

Energy isn't nothing, no, but what we've proven is that particles and antiparticles can borrow energy from the universe. The net energy of a fluctuation is zero - this is where I start to lose my footing slightly, but I believe a fluctuation can occur even when the field in question has no energy, i.e. you can have two particles jump out of nothing because their energies are equal and opposite. I don't want to elaborate any more on this until someone can confirm my thinking since I'm getting a little out of my comfort zone now. :p
 
sjt269 said:
It IS proven, Craterloads, experimentally and theoretically, and it's been well tested. True, energy is still something, but what we've established now is that matter can be created from no matter, right? So we're a step further towards making the big bang seem plausible.

Energy isn't nothing, no, but what we've proven is that particles and antiparticles can borrow energy from the universe. The net energy of a fluctuation is zero - this is where I start to lose my footing slightly, but I believe a fluctuation can occur even when the field in question has no energy, i.e. you can have two particles jump out of nothing because their energies are equal and opposite. I don't want to elaborate any more on this until someone can confirm my thinking since I'm getting a little out of my comfort zone now. :p
Click to expand...

Come on id hardly call it proven, theres not much information ive come accross. Isnt matter made out of energy so energy is matter and matter is energy?

Seems like a lot of this is just theories and unproven stuff, but point being there is never absolute nothing when talking about the universe contracting. The big bang didnt materialise out of absolute nothing, since there was energy.
 
let me ask a question, if the universe or its contents was created from a massive instant conversion of energy to matter resulting in the big bang and black holes convert matter to energy, can the process a black hole undertakes be viewed as a big bang in reverse just much smaller and less violent? is the conversion of matter to energy more intensive than energy to matter?

I'm a little thick you know so go easy on me.
 
Craterloads said:
Come on id hardly call it proven, theres not much information ive come accross. Isnt matter made out of energy so energy is matter and matter is energy?

Seems like a lot of this is just theories and unproven stuff, but point being there is never absolute nothing when talking about the universe contracting. The big bang didnt materialise out of absolute nothing, since there was energy.
Click to expand...

It's about as proven as it gets. There are experiments which perfectly match the theory.
 
DAnDan said:
It's about as proven as it gets. There are experiments which perfectly match the theory.
Click to expand...

Ive read somewhere that the energy may have come from a white hole emptying itself of matter, but no idea where the white hole came from?

Again energy is still something and not absolutely nothing.
 
Craterloads said:
Come on id hardly call it proven, theres not much information ive come accross.
Click to expand...

Believe me, it's a well known and accepted fact. You've been looking it up for maybe an hour, some of us have been working with it for years. :p


Craterloads said:
Seems like a lot of this is just theories and unproven stuff, but point being there is never absolute nothing when talking about the universe contracting. The big bang didnt materialise out of absolute nothing, since there was energy.
Click to expand...

The big bang DID materialise out of nothing! You're missing our point again; we were trying to show you that vacuum fluctuations illustrate the principle of matter forming from no matter, which I hope you'll come to accept. As far as we know, the infinitely hot, dense and small universe that was created at the precise the moment of the big bang just appeared out of nothing, along with all of space and time and the vacuum energy that gives rise to quantum fluctuations. We can't explain what triggered the big bang, and what if anything came before it. But given that our theories reach back 13.7 billion years, back to a few fractions of a second after the big bang, and given that all the predictions these theories make that can be tested have been tested and have passed, this theory is the single best explanation we have.

We can't tell you what happened at the moment of the big bang, or before it. But we can tell you in great detail what's happened over the following 13.7 billion years. You may disagree with the theory on philosophical grounds, but the science is sound. :)

And with that, I'm off to bed, ready to go back to working on a different type of quantum fluctuations tomorrow. :)


PS: wait, I've got answer this one:

Craterloads said:
Ive read somewhere that the energy may have come from a white hole emptying itself of matter, but no idea where the white hole came from?

Again energy is still something and not absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

White holes are actually more tenuous than anything we've put forward; they're a mathematical solution to Einstein's equations, but have never been seen, or even seriously looked for as far as I know.

Energy is something, you're dead right. But the big bang came from nothing. There was no energy, there was no anything, there was nothing. Then suddenly, the universe formed, all of space and time and energy just popped up out of nowhere. Isn't science fantastic? :D
 
Craterloads said:
Ive read somewhere that the energy may have come from a white hole emptying itself of matter, but no idea where the white hole came from?

Again energy is still something and not absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

A white hole eh? ;)

We never said energy isn't nothing. You keep saying that it's not absolutely nothing, and we're not saying it is. We've already explained what is meant by the use of the word nothing in each scenario, if you're still confused by it, take another read through the posts ;).
 
Craterloads said:
Ive read somewhere that the energy may have come from a white hole emptying itself of matter, but no idea where the white hole came from?

Again energy is still something and not absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

Well perhaps the holes in space are simply quantumly entangled parts of space and what determines whether it pulls in or pushes out depends on the respective spaces around the points.

"Pressure" in space somewhat.
 
sjt269 said:
.

Energy is something, you're dead right. But the big bang came from nothing. There was no energy, there was no anything, there was nothing. Then suddenly, the universe formed, all of space and time and energy just popped up out of nowhere. Isn't science fantastic? :D
Click to expand...

Im sorry there was energy, something didnt happen from nothing. Even your, cant remember the name, apparently created something out of energy in a vacume, so how you form that from that is beyond me. There has to be something even if its so small, we cant even record it.

vacuum fluctuations illustrate the principle of matter forming from no matter
Click to expand...
doesnt help with your point about the big bang being created from nothing, since this experiment used energy as a catalyste

We can't explain what triggered the big bang, and what if anything came before it.
Click to expand...

Because it contradicts the whole concept, hence why no explanation. No one knows what caused the big bang yet your confident it was created by nothing, that logic fails me :)
 
Last edited:
DAnDan said:
A white hole eh? ;)

We never said energy isn't nothing. You keep saying that it's not absolutely nothing, and we're not saying it is. We've already explained what is meant by the use of the word nothing in each scenario, if you're still confused by it, take another read through the posts ;).
Click to expand...

You said it contracts to absolute nothing, him above just said and i quote

There was no energy, there was no anything, there was nothing. Then suddenly, the universe formed, all of space and time and energy just popped up out of nowhere
Click to expand...

:)
 
Craterloads said:
Im sorry there was energy, something didnt happen from nothing. Even your, cant remember the name, apparently created something out of energy in a vacume, so how you form that from that is beyond me. There has to be something even if its so small, we cant even record it.
Click to expand...

Craterloads said:
You said it contracts to absolute nothing, him above just said and i quote



:)
Click to expand...

You're taking quotes talking about several different things, and expecting the exact same quote to work for both, it doesn't. You're also still ignoring that we're trying to explain something to you with no details, there's always going to be simplifications made from the exact truth, I've stated this MANY times now!

I seriously think you're just trying to pick holes in our on the spot explanation now, rather than being genuinely interested in the science behind it? :(
 
DAnDan said:
You're taking quotes talking about several different things, and expecting the exact same quote to work for both, it doesn't. You're also still ignoring that we're trying to explain something to you with no details, there's always going to be simplifications made from the exact truth, I've stated this MANY times now!

I seriously think you're just trying to pick holes in our on the spot explanation now, rather than being genuinely interested in the science behind it? :(
Click to expand...

I added this part

vacuum fluctuations illustrate the principle of matter forming from no matter
Click to expand...
doesnt help with your point about the big bang being created from nothing, since this experiment used energy as a catalyste

We can't explain what triggered the big bang, and what if anything came before it.
Click to expand...

Because it contradicts the whole concept, hence why no explanation. No one knows what caused the big bang yet your confident it was created by nothing, that logic fails me :)
Click to expand...

Yes i am trying to pick holes, isnt that how you test theories. I just find the science very sketchy at best. Some of the stuff you have said, youve gone on to say "no one knows this" though etc, which just happens to be the most fundemental and crucial part. How can you theorise, when you cant even explain what triggered something.

For example even just black holes or white holes, just seems like science fiction and you get scientist saying they are invisible yada ya but..
 
Last edited:
Craterloads said:
I added this part



Yes i am trying to pick holes, isnt that how you test theories. I just find the science very sketchy at best. Some of the stuff you have said, youve gone on to say "no one knows this" though etc, which just happens to be the most fundemental and crucial part. How can you theorise, when you cant even explain what triggered something.
Click to expand...

Of course you find the science sketchy, you don't know any of it! Do you really think papers can get through the rigors of peer reviewing and scruitiny if they're not sound!?
Trying to understand all of the big bang by a forum post, and then complaining that the explanation isn't 100% watertight is just comical. Of course it's not, you're having degree (and higher) level science explained to you in a few sentences, of course the explanations aren't perfect. But I'm not going to sit here and re-type a hundred text books for you, just so that the explanations aren't "sketchy".

As for the last part, about theorizing, of course we can. We can work back from where we are, using the laws and principles we know to work out what happens. So what if we can't say 100% (yet) what triggered something, we can still accurately model what happened next. You're basically saying that if you've got a car on a one way street and you've got information on its speed, and how long you it has been moving, that can't work out anything about where it came from/is going. Of course you can. Poor analogy I know, but it's 1AM and I've explained all of this already.

If you really, genuinely want to know, then enroll in a physics degree, and a PhD, and then you'll be able to know it properly. Until then, you'll have to make to with the dumbed down explanations given here, flaws and all.

Craterloads said:
For example even just black holes or white holes, just seems like science fiction and you get scientist saying they are invisible yada ya but..
Click to expand...

What does it matter if they're invisible? mavity is invisible, and so is air, do you doubt that they exist? No, you observe them through other methods, just like people do for black holes.

Edit - Anyway, this is far too much physics for 1AM! I'm off to sleep, night all!
 
Last edited:
DAnDan said:
Edit - Anyway, this is far too much physics for 1AM! I'm off to sleep, night all!
Click to expand...

Agreed :D

All this regarding the contracting crunch theory which is not even considered viable anymore since the universe is expanding :), as pointed out earlier in the thread. So cant even fathom why your using an untrue theory to support something else like the big bang creating something from absolute nothing, which takes away from the credibility of what your saying in the first place.

Considering the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate i can’t see how that fits in to the big bang theory, shouldn’t it be slowing down. I’ve been hearing about dark energy that is forcing the universe to expand at an increasing rate. For this model to work, dark energy must make up 75 per cent of the energy-mass of the Universe and be increasing at a fantastic rate. Problem being isn’t that fundementally contradicting the law of conservation of energy?

Wun-Yi Shu's theory,from the National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan, shows that singularities cannot exist in this cosmos and more so doesnt abandon the law of conservation of energy. Whiles Shu's theory is far from perfect, neither is the theory of the big bang and atleast it hasnt introduced "dark matter" conviently and abandoned conservation of energy.

Anyhow i give up, im no closer to understanding time, because even before the big bang (which no one can tell you what it is/was) there was still something wether that be energy/matter etc it could still be measured but not by the definition of what we class as time.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
It always confounds me that there is a finite amount of matter in an infinite Universe if the FLRW model is correct.....and the point my brother made once about the whole universe expanding but essentially nothing is actually moving, only the spaces 'inbetween' stuff is getting wider...or something like that..I will try to hunt the analogy out.

I love this kind of stuff, it frustrates me that I do not have the Maths to truely grasp it outside of the abstract.

However this has moved away from 'Time' a little bit..:)
Click to expand...

Thats what I think too, that mavity condenses distance. It relates to time though because low mavity (stretched distance) has "faster" time relative to high mavity (condensed distance).

There's a theoretical spaceship engine designed on the principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
 
Oh and before i go to sleep, i was wondering.

If using our balloon analagy, that our universe is inside this balloon and when it expands so does our universe and when it contracts so does our universe. Is it possible that there is another balloon outside of ours, and another one next to it, which is inside a larger ballon and so on and so on? Essentially mutliple universes?
 
or maybe I shouldnt say mavity condense distance, but matter does. If you imagine spacetime as a planck length lattice, each intersection being a potential degree of freedom, matter pulls degrees of freedom towards itself if that makes sense, in accordance with entropy. The effect is inflation/compression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom