98 replies to this topic

[StarMountainKid]

lightly said:

I'm relieved to hear that space is not "EMPTY"   I knew it couldn't be  
Would it be safe to say that , similarly , ...  the "space" within the boundaries of an atom is not empty but full of some sort of energy?  .. energy field?  or something?

Quote

Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when the space is devoid of matter (free space). The concept of vacuum energy has been deduced from the concept of virtual particles, which is itself derived from the energy-time uncertainty principle. The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the van der Waals bonds^{[citation needed]} and the Lamb shift, and are thought to influence the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Vacuum_energy

[deerslayer]

"There is no such a thing as "always exists" about matter, and for that matter, about man. Only God always exists. And focus that the verb is in the present tense and not in the past; and it can neither be in the future."

I agree with Ben.  It's telling that the Lord referred to himself as "I am."  Sort of like He knows He always exists.

[chezarelli]

Beany, on 24 June 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

Do you ever get the feeling that the universe rolls its eyes at our pitiable attempts to explain it? Science is still in its infancy, yet physicists are talking about a multiverse, parallel dimensions, neutrons that disappear and reappear, the still to be understood dark matter and dark energy, and the boson higgs particles that give mass to other particles. It reminds me of all those sci fi books I read as a kid, Asimov, Clark, Heinlein, Bradbury. Childhood's End, and the one about the positronic pump in which energy was transferred from one parallel universe to another, and concept of "grokking." I'm starting to think sci fi may be the best predictor of future science!

Yes i agree everybody corrects everybody else on these topics and ist all speculation apart from some fact tested and proven
the other 90% is still unknown

[StarMountainKid]

Seeker79 said:

here is no evidence that the vacume or fabric of space came from the big bang. In fact suskind  thinks it has always been here.

Quite obviously if the universe started as a quantum fluctuation then the vacuum had to preceed the BB

Yes, the BB theory doesn't describe the Bang itself, just its aftermath. The BB may have been created by a False Vacuum..  Alan Guth:
http://www.pbs.org/w...uns_guth_1.html

WilliamW said:

Future Science in its present now state is not something to place ones faith into.  Science is being used to create a prison for us all.

I agree that present science is an ongoing development, and we must understand it to be a partial understanding, and concepts may change in the future. But I don't think it's a prison for us if we keep an open, rational mind that is fact-based and not just baseless speculation.

We all speculate about things here at UM, and I think that's healthy, but we must recognize speculation when we see it, even in ourselves, and equally not have too much faith that our imaginations create truth.

I must not forget my own Disclaimer:
"Disclaimer! I am a semi-scientifically-literate person who usually completely misinterprets the meaning of quantum mechanics, The Theory of Relativity and all other scientific theories, have little knowledge of the advanced mathematics which properly describe these theories, and am presenting the following poorly conceived personal hypothesis off the top of my head, realizing it is a complete fabrication of my own and bears no resemblance to how the universe in fact actually operates."

Edited by StarMountainKid, 25 June 2012 - 05:03 PM.

[Lion6969]

Imaginarynumber1, on 23 June 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

Umm.. The nothing that did exist before the big bang was hardly nothing. Quantum vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles. They were the 'cause' of the big bang. 'Nothing' as a state is unstable and as well all know, nature hates instability and abhors a vacuum. Path of least resistance and all that.
Physics has explained away your god as unnecessary.

Lol.....the vacuum was one of the best answers atheists use to give to theists when asked how the universe came into existence from nothing. This was because they assumed the vacuum was nothing until we learned it's a rich sea of fluctuating energy. So question was still unanswered! Then I see the above comment, which is so devoid of it's philosophical and scientific implications!

Firstly, if the vacuum (a false vacuum) caused the big bang, this means it's a physical cause, if it's a physical cause, it's empirically observable, testable, and our science would not breakdown at the singularity but would continue to this other physical plane (false vacuum), physics work from one physical plane to another, so if the vacuum was the cause there would be empirical evidence of what was before the bigbang. It then begs the question "where did that vacuum come from or what caused it" thus the inevitable infinite regression!

[Lion6969]

Framling, on 23 June 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

Two words for the op:

1. Infinity.

2. Multiverse. (As in the possibly our universe is only one of many universes created the exact same way ours was)


Thinking along any other lines to me is like the old thinking that we were the only planetary solar system in our universe. We just need bigger telescopes.

1. Please show an actual export of the infinite in our physical reality ie universe

2. It's a mathematical fairy tale with no empirical proof ie no proof which you require as your standard of truth- scientific!

[Artaxerxes]

You can't fool me!  It's turtles all the way down!

[Imaginarynumber1]

Lion6969, on 25 June 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

Lol.....the vacuum was one of the best answers atheists use to give to theists when asked how the universe came into existence from nothing. This was because they assumed the vacuum was nothing until we learned it's a rich sea of fluctuating energy. So question was still unanswered! Then I see the above comment, which is so devoid of it's philosophical and scientific implications!

Firstly, if the vacuum (a false vacuum) caused the big bang, this means it's a physical cause, if it's a physical cause, it's empirically observable, testable, and our science would not breakdown at the singularity but would continue to this other physical plane (false vacuum), physics work from one physical plane to another, so if the vacuum was the cause there would be empirical evidence of what was before the bigbang. It then begs the question "where did that vacuum come from or what caused it" thus the inevitable infinite regression!

Done laughing? Good. Now try reading something other than your book of fairy tales.

Here, try this;  http://www.space.com...on-science.html
There was a very physical cause for the big bang. Quantum fluctuations, most likely. Even if our level of understanding leads to an infinite regression at this point, it's no different than saying that god did it, begging the question of what created god. And if you're just going to say that god exists outside of space and time, then I'm just going to counter that my couch exists outside of space and time it it was, in fact, what created the universe.

Our science breaks down at singularities because we don't yet have a grand unified theory that would go along way to understanding them. Just because we don't know doesn't mean we won't in the future. By your logic black holes do not exist since what lay inside is not observable at testable at our current level of physics.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 25 June 2012 - 08:48 PM.

[Lion6969]

Imaginarynumber1, on 25 June 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Done laughing? Good. Now try reading something other than your book of fairy tales.

Here, try this;  http://www.space.com...on-science.html
There was a very physical cause for the big bang. Quantum fluctuations, most likely. Even if our level of understanding leads to an infinite regression at this point, it's no different than saying that god did it, begging the question of what created god. And if you're just going to say that god exists outside of space and time, then I'm just going to counter that my couch exists outside of space and time it it was, in fact, what created the universe.

Our science breaks down at singularities because we don't yet have a grand unified theory that would go along way to understanding them. Just because we don't know doesn't mean we won't in the future. By your logic black holes do not exist since what lay inside is not observable at testable at our current level of physics.

Lmao!!! You do realise don't you that there is no proof for this. You know that sane proof you require to believe in god ie your own standard has no proof for this!!!

You see scientists are not philosophers so when they theorise sometimes using mathamatical axioms, they don't know the implication of what they say. Hence philosophy of science helps us get answers. That is, if there is a physical cause to universe then, it's should be observable, testable etc, do you have this proof? If it's physical, then what caused that physical cause and so on, infinite regression! Lol

You don't require a unified theory because if the cause is physical then its lime our physical reality. Our science, maths physics would go beyond the singularity, the reason it does not is because, the universe is the sum of all matter and energy ie physicality! Any other physicality beyond it would be accessible by our current science too.

You see you simply believe in the above post of yours based on faith alone, faith in science and faith in the scientists. Because everything on your link has no single proof!!!!

""The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there," said astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley. "With the laws of physics, you can get universes."

You see statements like this make me chuckle. Ask him where did the laws of physics come from? What are they? Laws of physics are observations which we have labeled so as natural occurrences in our physical reality ie universe. According the above the laws MAY (see your faith element) have started by laws of physics. So then where did they come from?

The scientists himself recognises the lameness of his statement philosophically:

""The question, then, is, 'Why are there laws of physics?'" he said. "And you could say, 'Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.'"

But that answer just continues to kick the can down the road, because you still need to explain where the divine creator came from. The process leads to a never-ending chain that always leaves you short of the ultimate answer, Filippenko said."

You see it's above statements which make laugh too. On one hand he sort of acknowledges the infinite regression problem with a physical cause, but then tries to dismiss it by claiming that a divine creator faces the same problem! You see atheist philosophers would cringe at such statements, because all it shows is their lack of understanding of the argument! God is an uncaused cause of the universe, so how does that cause infinite regression?!!!!!

It's a very lame effort by materialist and atheists. Nothing new here to see. Tell me how did a physical cause bring into existence the sum of all matter and energy? This is not scientific but philosophical

Then your scientists end on this:

The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve.

"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."

Basically let's have faith in my theory and statement, then you ridicule faith of theists. Lmao!!!!

Edited by Lion6969, 25 June 2012 - 10:38 PM.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Lion6969, on 25 June 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

Lmao!!! You do realise don't you that there is no proof for this. You know that sane proof you require to believe in god ie your own standard has no proof for this!!!

You see scientists are not philosophers so when they theorise sometimes using mathamatical axioms, they don't know the implication of what they say. Hence philosophy of science helps us get answers. That is, if there is a physical cause to universe then, it's should be observable, testable etc, do you have this proof? If it's physical, then what caused that physical cause and so on, infinite regression! Lol

You don't require a unified theory because if the cause is physical then its lime our physical reality. Our science, maths physics would go beyond the singularity, the reason it does not is because, the universe is the sum of all matter and energy ie physicality! Any other physicality beyond it would be accessible by our current science too.

Actually, all of our observations of the universe back up the Big Bang Theory and quantum fluctuations are seen all the time in accelerators. (Way more proof that can be said of your god)
As for 'our science, maths physics' going 'beyond the singularity', you have no clear concept of how science works, do you? By your reasoning we should all still be huddled in caves around fires because learning is bad!

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 25 June 2012 - 10:33 PM.

[Lion6969]

Imaginarynumber1, on 25 June 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

Actually, all of our observations of the universe back up the Big Bang Theory and quantum fluctuations are seen all the time in accelerators. (Way more proof that can be said of your god)
As for 'our science, maths physics' going 'beyond the singularity', you have no clear concept of how science works, do you? By your reasoning we should all still be huddled in caves around fires because learning is bad!

Lol. I dint question the observation of the bigbang or quantum fluctuating which we see in the vacuum in space which we thought was nothing! I said there is no proof for your ridiculous claim of a physical cause ie false vacuum. Show me observations for this please, because based in your theory, the cause is not metaphysical but physical thus the same as our reality, show me the vacuum observed beyond our universe, then show me the physical cause behind that and so on for infinity, because physics and science only deal with the physical!

As for the final three or so lines in your post, all it proves is your way in over your head on such matters

[Mr. Smith]

Lion6969, on 25 June 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

1. Please show an actual export of the infinite in our physical reality ie universe

2. It's a mathematical fairy tale with no empirical proof ie no proof which you require as your standard of truth- scientific!

Mathmatical fairy tale? PPfffft. Quick, tie me to a stake and burn me, I'm a heretic.  

This one is in kind of comic book form, should be safe for this forum.

http://www.math.hels...gzhou-boban.pdf

[Imaginarynumber1]

Lion6969, on 25 June 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

Lol. I dint question the observation of the bigbang or quantum fluctuating which we see in the vacuum in space which we thought was nothing! I said there is no proof for your ridiculous claim of a physical cause ie false vacuum. Show me observations for this please, because based in your theory, the cause is not metaphysical but physical thus the same as our reality, show me the vacuum observed beyond our universe, then show me the physical cause behind that and so on for infinity, because physics and science only deal with the physical!

As for the final three or so lines in your post, all it proves is your way in over your head on such matters

Here, let me pull some pre-big bang vacuum out of my pocket for you.
Mathematics is the language of the universe and shows us far more than you can image.

As for being in over me head on such matters, you don't don't know my background nor what I have studied nor for how long.

[Lion6969]

Framling clearly you don't understand the premises! Multiverse has no proof- zilch by your own standards ie empirical!
Secondly maths can make sense of the infinity through axioms and conventions. Stick with me here, but there is no export of the infinite our physical reality ie universe!

So while mathamtically we can grasp the concept of infinite in reality it has no export. Just because it's maths does not make it right. Hence why we use philosophy and philosophy of science to test and see the implications of such theories and mathamatical fantasies. So even though you try enlighten me with your link and the maths involved I am more familiar than you are with these concepts and even more so philosophically now go away and bring me empirical proof thank you

I love maths respect it and it's the language of the universe. But it's also dependent on how it's intepreted and implications in reality. For example the maths which show us we are orbiting the sun, can also be interpreted mathematically via models to show the earth is centre of our solar system, which is your preference? I guess the former, why? Both have identical data both models are mathematically sound, so why one and not the other? Oh yeah for philosophical reasons!

[ranrod]

Over time we're replacing one question with another (or two).  Where did the universe come from?  The Big bang.  Where did the big bang come from?  Quantum fluctuations.  Where did the quantum fluctuations come from...etc, etc, etc.  It's possible we will never run out of questions.  

For believers, sticking god(s) in that line of reasoning ends the endless chain.  Where did the universe come from?  God - END OF STORY.  Only non-believers ask, "Where did God come from?"  If asked, the answer is, "He's eternal" and that's good enough for them.  To their credit, having a definitive answer feels better than having questions we can't answer in our lifetimes.

It is possible we will never have all the answers through science, however, we will never know unless we try.  Figuring out the universe from within is a great pursuit.  Given the amazing capabilities of the human brain, it would be a shame to surrender them all, and not use them to figure out how we came to be.