From Whence the Universe?

[onedomino]

I don't think you can really call it a Universe until its about three times older than it already is and we have to make sure its not connected to some other life support system.

Your idea that the Universe has the quality of being "connected" is interesting. Is it then the whole Universe? Would not the whole Universe entail also the thing (for want of a better word) to which it is connected? If the Universe expands and contracts what does it mean to say that it is connected across the cusp of a singularity? It is here that both language and Physics breaks down. What is the singularity? Is it qualitatively the same as the singularity within a common black hole only larger, constituting not just the energy and matter of a particular star, but the energy and matter of everything in the Universe? If so, does it have gravity, as does a common black hole? Does it possess angular momentum (spin) as does a common black hole? But how can this be? Does not gravity require space to reside within? The singularity present at the beginning of the one-and-only Big Bang, as well as the singularity that may exist across the cusp of an expanding and contracting Universe, does not reside within space. Rather space is created as the Big Bang expands. These ideas are very difficult to express with ordinary language; they are among the most difficult questions we know how to ask. That is why they are most often expressed with mathematics.

 

[5stringJeff]

Jeff, while it may seem counterintuitive, modern Quantum Mechanics holds that your statement simply is not correct. In particular, there is no such thing as the law of causation. Quantum Mechanics, responsible for integrated circuits and many other advances, holds that it is meaningless to speak in terms of causality. The position of a particle in space is relativistic, not Newtonian. This was established in the 1920s. Causality, defined as A necessitates B, is an artifact of language that has no value for modern Physics. Here we are not referring to simple systems such as one plus one necessitates two. Rather, at its most fundamental level, Physics is a statistical system of knowledge, not a determinate system. Even though his theories led directly to the foundation of Quantum Mechanics, Einstein rebelled at the need for Physics to toss causality overboard and resulted in his famous remark, “God does not play with dice.” But as Quantum Mechanics has repeatedly demonstrated through the decades, apparently He does. Consider one of the most important scientific discoveries of the 20th Century, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:


-

Let me do a bit of research. MTF.

 

[5stringJeff]

Not all things are impossible Jeff.

Using your logic, who created the Creator?

The Creator is the First Cause, which has no cause. This is possible because God is unchanging (and unchangable), therefore, no cause can work to effect Him.

 

[jillian]

The Creator is the First Cause, which has no cause. This is possible because God is unchanging (and unchangable), therefore, no cause can work to effect Him.

What if he is the sum total of all the energy in the universe and we simply can't conceptualize of something that large?

 

[5stringJeff]

What if he is the sum total of all the energy in the universe and we simply can't conceptualize of something that large?

Regardless of our conceptualization, if God were merely the sum total of the energy in the universe, then the universe would be self-caused, which is logically impossible.

 

[dilloduck]

What if he is the sum total of all the energy in the universe and we simply can't conceptualize of something that large?

Are you suggesting that we not try?

 

[CharlestonChad]

GIVEN: The universe exists. Either:

A) The universe has always existed, or
B) The universe began to exist.

If A is true (i.e. the universe has always existed), then the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time.
If that is true, then, by the second law of thermodynamics (which states, "the entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value"), all the energy in the universe would be effectively disbursed at equilibrium, and the whole universe would be at about .1 degrees Kelvin.
However, we do not observe the universe as such.
Therefore, A is false, and the universe had a beginning.

If the universe had a beginning, either:
A) the universe created itself, or
B) the universe was created by something else.

A cannot be true, because an object cannot be its own efficient cause. Therefore, the universe must have been created by a Creator.

Humans used to think the world was the center of the universe. Science has proven that wrong. Humans think the universe has to have been created, only time will tell what science reveals.

 

[jillian]

Regardless of our conceptualization, if God were merely the sum total of the energy in the universe, then the universe would be self-caused, which is logically impossible.

See.. I don't think that would be "merely the sum total", I think it would be extraordinary. And as for the universe being self-caused, well... there is so much we don't know yet.

That said, I don't think the concept of the Big Bang is inconsistent with the concept of Creationism. Near as I can tell, neither do scientists like Hawkings.

 

[Nienna]

That is a very important question, Nienna. And this subject is not easy to think about. I agree that time has only one direction. The fact that the Universe may contract to a singularity before another Big Bang does not entail that the direction of time's arrow changes. But the fact that the direction of time never changes, does not constitute evidence that it began at a particular point.

But, if it didn't begin at a particular point, if it extends infinitely into the past, doesn't that make it bidirectional? (I just made up that word, but you know what I mean. )

 

[dmp]

I really wish I could be smart enough to participate in this thread

 

[onedomino]

But, if it didn't begin at a particular point, if it extends infinitely into the past, doesn't that make it bidirectional? (I just made up that word, but you know what I mean. )

How does gravitational collapse entail the reversal of time? It is not like a movie played backwards where one sees time appear to flow in reverse. If we get in a car, drive down the road, stop, and then drive in reverse, time has continued to flow forward. If the individual magnets in a pile move apart due to some influence (the Big Bang), but the individual magnets have enough mass to pull themselves back into a pile (there is enough Dark Matter to cause a collapse to another singularity), time has continued to flow forward during the entire process. But your intuition to ask questions about the flow of time is right on target, Nienna. Time is not a general static context within which the Universe resides. While it is thought that the direction of time’s arrow never changes, the rate of the forward flow of time does change depending on the position of the observer. The closer one approaches the speed of light, the slower is the forward direction of time relative to an independent observer. Moreover, the closer an object accelerates toward the speed of light, the greater is its mass. We say that time and mass are relative to the acceleration of the object. This counterintuitive theory has been demonstrated experimentally. Atomic clocks placed in orbit at many thousands of miles per hour do in fact run slower than identical clocks that have remained on Earth. And Nienna, if you can explain exactly why time and mass are relative, then you will soon be collecting your Nobel Prize. We know that this is part of the structure of the Universe, but we do not know why this should be so.

 

[Nienna]

How does gravitational collapse entail the reversal of time? It is not like a movie played backwards where one sees time appear to flow in reverse. If we get in a car, drive down the road, stop, and then drive in reverse, time has continued to flow forward. If the individual magnets in a pile move apart due to some influence (the Big Bang), but the individual magnets have enough mass to pull themselves back into a pile (there is enough Dark Matter to cause a collapse to another singularity), time has continued to flow forward during the entire process. But your intuition to ask questions about the flow of time is right on target, Nienna. Time is not a general static context within which the Universe resides. While it is thought that the direction of time’s arrow never changes, the rate of the forward flow of time does change depending on the position of the observer. The closer one approaches the speed of light, the slower is the forward direction of time relative to an independent observer. Moreover, the closer an object accelerates toward the speed of light, the greater is its mass. We say that time and mass are relative to the acceleration of the object. This counterintuitive theory has been demonstrated experimentally. Atomic clocks placed in orbit at many thousands of miles per hour do in fact run slower than identical clocks that have remained on Earth. And Nienna, if you can explain exactly why time and mass are relative, then you will soon be collecting your Nobel Prize. We know that this is part of the structure of the Universe, but we do not know why this should be so.

LOL! No Nobel Prizes for me, at least not in science... one of my WORST subjects!

Re:

How does gravitational collapse entail the reversal of time? It is not like a movie played backwards where one sees time appear to flow in reverse.

I wasn't saying that a gravitational collapse would necessitate the reversal of time. I was simply speaking of time, itself. If time is unidirectional, it can't ALWAYS have existed. Otherwise it would be extending infinitely into the past as well as infinitely into the future. This would make it bidirectional. If it is unidirectional, it must be proceeding from some point. Is my logic flawed? Jeff?

Hey, I just looked up both "bidirectional" and "unidirectional," and what do you know? They're both in the dictionary. I was smarter than I thought I was!

 

[Abbey Normal]

ITA. I always get a kick out of the "something from nothing" theory; which, defies physical law.

I have to disagree, Gunny. Public relations people make something out of nothing all the time. Take Paris Hilton, for example.

 

[Abbey Normal]

...
That said, I don't think the concept of the Big Bang is inconsistent with the concept of Creationism. Near as I can tell, neither do scientists like Hawkings.

I agree, Jillian.

 

[dmp]

Doesn't the Big Bang say the Sun was formed, THEN the earth? That's contrary to the account from Genesis.

 

[onedomino]

Doesn't the Big Bang say the Sun was formed, THEN the earth? That's contrary to the account from Genesis.

Astrophysicists estimate the time of the Big Bang as 12 to 14 billion years ago. The Sun is about 5 billion years old, and the Earth's age is about 4.5 billion years. The Earth and the other planets condensed from the disc of material that surrounded our young Sun. The Universe was at least 7.5 billion years old (maybe 9.5) before our Sun condensed from the gas that occupied this region of space.

 

[Nienna]

That said, I don't think the concept of the Big Bang is inconsistent with the concept of Creationism. Near as I can tell, neither do scientists like Hawkings.

Not if you bend & twist Genesis to make it fit the theory of the Big Bang. If you take Genesis as-is, the two models are inconsistent.

 

[Hamiltonian]

LOL! No Nobel Prizes for me, at least not in science... one of my WORST subjects!

Re:

I wasn't saying that a gravitational collapse would necessitate the reversal of time. I was simply speaking of time, itself. If time is unidirectional, it can't ALWAYS have existed. Otherwise it would be extending infinitely into the past as well as infinitely into the future. This would make it bidirectional. If it is unidirectional, it must be proceeding from some point. Is my logic flawed? Jeff?

Hey, I just looked up both "bidirectional" and "unidirectional," and what do you know? They're both in the dictionary. I was smarter than I thought I was!

There is no such thing as "time," only a perceived relative change in Entropy of our universe. It is possible to complete a closed loop of entropy and wind up back where we started or have our universe system complete a pendulum motion on in an Entropy/Energy two dimentional space? Entropy is a state variable and has always existed and can be driven backwards if you have enough Energy (another state variable). We could be in a cycle where entropy drives our system, but then constraint of energy on the system could overtake and then bring our universe back to our starting point in a large reaction. I propose we specify our universe system by the state functions Entropy and Energy .

To answer your question, why can't you have counter clockwise and clockwise (bidirectional) passing of time if you have a circular time system?

 

[LOki]

GIVEN: The universe exists. Either:

A) The universe has always existed, or
B) The universe began to exist.

This is my type of discussion starter! w00t!

If A is true (i.e. the universe has always existed), then the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time.

Assumes that "time" is independent from "the universe."

If that is true, then, by the second law of thermodynamics (which states, "the entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value"), all the energy in the universe would be effectively disbursed at equilibrium, and the whole universe would be at about .1 degrees Kelvin.

Ignores the notion of infinite. If there is infinite amounts of time to work with, there are infinite configurations for the placement of each quantum of mass/energy--although the statistical disbursement of mass/energy may be statisically and/or macroscopically homogenous, they may yet still exhibit localized (in time/space) variation.

However, we do not observe the universe as such.

An assertion without basis in observation claiming that the local conditions of the observable universe is inconsistent with the conditions of the unobserved universe.

Therefore, A is false, and the universe had a beginning.

Sorry Jeff, your conclusions do not necessarily follow from your premises.

If the universe had a beginning, either:
A) the universe created itself, or
B) the universe was created by something else.

False dilemma derived from begging the question. Here, "A" and "B" are the same thing, because in "A," creation is a phenominon outside of, and distinct from, the existence of "A;" just exactly as it is in "B."

Better is:
If the universe had a beginning, either:
A) the universe was created, or
B) the universe was not created.

Back to your conclusion though:

A cannot be true, because an object cannot be its own efficient cause.

Correct, recognizing and establishing the logical impossibility of the existence of an un-caused cause.

Therefore, the universe must have been created by a Creator.

An assertion in direct contradiction to yourself above; a denial of your own argument against the universe creating itself.

Now you are free to explore B) The universe was not created.

If the universe had a beginning, either:
A) the universe created itself, or
B) the universe was created by something else.

A cannot be true, because an object cannot be its own efficient cause. Therefore, the universe must have been created by a Creator.

ITA. I always get a kick out of the "something from nothing" theory; which, defies physical law.

HAHAHAHA! Me too!

Good try. The Creator had no beginning, and therefore needed no "cause."

The exact same thing can be said for the universe, and in that case, just as in the case for a "creator"--it's begging the question.

The Creator is the First Cause, which has no cause. This is possible because God is unchanging (and unchangable), therefore, no cause can work to effect Him.

The exact same thing can be said for the universe, and in that case, just as in the case for "The Creator"--it's begging the question.

Regardless of our conceptualization, if God were merely the sum total of the energy in the universe, then the universe would be self-caused, which is logically impossible.

Yes. A self-caused universe is just a logically impossible as a self-caused God--that doesn't argue against an un-caused universe any more than it argues against an un-caused God.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

GIVEN: The universe exists. Either:

A) The universe has always existed, or
B) The universe began to exist.

If A is true (i.e. the universe has always existed), then the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time.
If that is true, then, by the second law of thermodynamics (which states, "the entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value"), all the energy in the universe would be effectively disbursed at equilibrium, and the whole universe would be at about .1 degrees Kelvin.
However, we do not observe the universe as such.
Therefore, A is false, and the universe had a beginning.

If the universe had a beginning, either:
A) the universe created itself, or
B) the universe was created by something else.

A cannot be true, because an object cannot be its own efficient cause. Therefore, the universe must have been created by a Creator.

You might try referring this thread to the religion thread. Science does not, nor does it claim to, explain anything about what caused existence.