Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Childish superstition: Einstein's letter

brave_new_world

May 16 2008, 05:58 PM

QUOTE (Copasetic @ May 17 2008, 01:42 AM)

Its not so much that "the big bang didn't occur in time and space" as it is, time and space are a result of the big bang. The potential for time and space was in the small dense baby universe or singularity or whatever you wish to call it. So its not a case of "something from nothing", its a case of a realization of a potential that lay within the singularity.

So the universe has existed eternally?

QUOTE

Picture it like this, let's say you have balloon, squished down to incredibly small dimensions. Before you squished it down, you had marked little "X"s all over the surface in varying places. When the balloon is in this super small, super dense state all points are essentially the same, or so close to being the same measuring the difference would impossible.

Now let's picture blowing up the balloon from this extremely squished state. The points remain the same points but the fabric of balloon expands. The fabric, our representation of space in this case, was there all along. It always had the potential to be much larger and different, but in the extremely small state all points in the fabric were essentially equivalent. The expanded fabric of the balloon did not come from nothing, it was there all along.

I hope this helps, if not let me know and I'll try and think of a better example to explain it.

Im trying to get this. So then if there is only the small dense cosmic egg then what was surrounding it before it goes off?

brave_new_world

May 16 2008, 06:02 PM

QUOTE (Copasetic @ May 17 2008, 02:42 AM)

Its not so much that "the big bang didn't occur in time and space" as it is, time and space are a result of the big bang. The potential for time and space was in the small dense baby universe or singularity or whatever you wish to call it. So its not a case of "something from nothing", its a case of a realization of a potential that lay within the singularity.

Picture it like this, let's say you have balloon, squished down to incredibly small dimensions. Before you squished it down, you had marked little "X"s all over the surface in varying places. When the balloon is in this super small, super dense state all points are essentially the same, or so close to being the same measuring the difference would impossible.

Now let's picture blowing up the balloon from this extremely squished state. The points remain the same points but the fabric of balloon expands. The fabric, our representation of space in this case, was there all along. It always had the potential to be much larger and different, but in the extremely small state all points in the fabric were essentially equivalent. The expanded fabric of the balloon did not come from nothing, it was there all along.

I hope this helps, if not let me know and I'll try and think of a better example to explain it.

Hey Copasetic is this physicist correct in what he says?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zMr7Z_f0jM

This goes for seven minutes and is a very quick talk by a physicist and I would like your opinion on this : )

Devol

May 17 2008, 12:58 PM

This is priceless, folks! Really!
Please, continue your efforts to "claim" Einstein.
I understand that the side with the most "brownie points" at the end of time gets a pizza party.

Copasetic

May 17 2008, 01:11 PM

QUOTE (brave_new_world @ May 16 2008, 01:58 PM)

So the universe has existed eternally?

Hmm, Well you could say that, I'd would say it is more the potential for the universe to exist was always there. Its like our balloon, once it is blown up its a much different looking thing than when in our small dense state. How the balloon looks when it is blown up, was not always there. But the potential for the balloon to become that way existed even when the balloon was crunched down to extremely small sizes.

QUOTE (brave_new_world @ May 16 2008, 01:58 PM)

Im trying to get this. So then if there is only the small dense cosmic egg then what was surrounding it before it goes off?

I don't know, more specifically we don't know. And anyone that claims to know is blowing smoke up your a***. It could be nothingness, it could be another universe, it could be some huge agglomeration of universes constantly branching, or it could be something that we have no words in our vocabulary to even describe. At this point in our technological and scientific understanding we simply can't say for sure, one way or the other.

There is some great hypotheses of what lay outside the "cosmic egg", but we have no way (currently) to test these. I for one, have no problem with saying "I don't know", but its fun to speculate. I like the idea of branching universes proposed by Hawking and some others, but this inevitably leads back to the same boat. What was outside the trunk of main universe before its expansion?

Copasetic

May 17 2008, 01:23 PM

QUOTE (brave_new_world @ May 16 2008, 02:02 PM)

Hey Copasetic is this physicist correct in what he says?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zMr7Z_f0jM

This goes for seven minutes and is a very quick talk by a physicist and I would like your opinion on this : )

Sure, why not? I don't think its as simple as right or wrong in this case. He starts of by describing a Copenhagen-ish interpretation of QM then delves into the philosophical. I would think that most biologists and neurologists would disagree with him about thoughts and where they come from, not from "some realm beyond ours", but rather from the chemical (quantum) interactions taking place in the brain. Which would mean that consciousness is an artifact of these interactions.

Much like the "flow of time" is an artifact of our consciousness. We think of time as passing, when in reality time just is. Time does not pass, we pass.

He also says there was a big nothingness, as I just posted this is but one possibility. Was there really a big nothingness? Can he quantify this nothingness? Can he test this nothingness, interact with it? No. He is positing what many late 20th century physicists believe surrounded our "cosmic egg". This however, can be said to be a matter of opinion.

I think the confusion with a lot of this (QM), is we don't have the full picture. Sure QM is a great mathematical description of our world. It is without a doubt the most proven theory in science. Everything from supermarket scanners to home computers work on the basis of QM. But, all we have is a description. That is why we have interpretation, so it can make sense in the real world. I think given a few more years and some technological advancements we won't need the interpretations, because we will be able to see (or hopefully) what it is QM is saying about our world.

Raptor

May 17 2008, 01:26 PM

QUOTE (Devol @ May 17 2008, 01:58 PM)

This is priceless, folks! Really!
Please, continue your efforts to "claim" Einstein.
I understand that the side with the most "brownie points" at the end of time gets a pizza party.

So by clearing up misconceptions you think we're trying to "claim" Einstein? Hmm, okay then.

Devol

May 17 2008, 01:39 PM

QUOTE (Raptor @ May 17 2008, 09:26 AM)

So by clearing up misconceptions you think we're trying to "claim" Einstein? Hmm, okay then.

It had crossed my mind.
Perhaps the thread was better suited for another board
and the title did leave me wondering.
Whatever you're doing, you seem to be having fun with it.
Carry on, then.

brave_new_world

May 18 2008, 08:49 AM

QUOTE (Copasetic @ May 17 2008, 09:11 PM)

Hmm, Well you could say that, I'd would say it is more the potential for the universe to exist was always there. Its like our balloon, once it is blown up its a much different looking thing than when in our small dense state. How the balloon looks when it is blown up, was not always there. But the potential for the balloon to become that way existed even when the balloon was crunched down to extremely small sizes.

I don't know, more specifically we don't know. And anyone that claims to know is blowing smoke up your a***. It could be nothingness, it could be another universe, it could be some huge agglomeration of universes constantly branching, or it could be something that we have no words in our vocabulary to even describe. At this point in our technological and scientific understanding we simply can't say for sure, one way or the other.

There is some great hypotheses of what lay outside the "cosmic egg", but we have no way (currently) to test these. I for one, have no problem with saying "I don't know", but its fun to speculate. I like the idea of branching universes proposed by Hawking and some others, but this inevitably leads back to the same boat. What was outside the trunk of main universe before its expansion?

Also it leads to the question. . . . are we truly in the main universe? Thank you for your explanations. They have given me something to ponder.

brave_new_world

May 18 2008, 08:54 AM

QUOTE (Copasetic @ May 17 2008, 09:23 PM)

Sure, why not? I don't think its as simple as right or wrong in this case. He starts of by describing a Copenhagen-ish interpretation of QM then delves into the philosophical. I would think that most biologists and neurologists would disagree with him about thoughts and where they come from, not from "some realm beyond ours", but rather from the chemical (quantum) interactions taking place in the brain. Which would mean that consciousness is an artifact of these interactions.

However since consciousness or mind cannot yet be located in the brain they can only disagree in theory.

QUOTE

Much like the "flow of time" is an artifact of our consciousness. We think of time as passing, when in reality time just is. Time does not pass, we pass.

He also says there was a big nothingness, as I just posted this is but one possibility. Was there really a big nothingness? Can he quantify this nothingness? Can he test this nothingness, interact with it? No. He is positing what many late 20th century physicists believe surrounded our "cosmic egg". This however, can be said to be a matter of opinion.

In that case can we prove that the universe before the 'big bang' was only the finite size of this dense cosmic egg? If so then how can that be proven?

QUOTE

I think the confusion with a lot of this (QM), is we don't have the full picture. Sure QM is a great mathematical description of our world. It is without a doubt the most proven theory in science. Everything from supermarket scanners to home computers work on the basis of QM. But, all we have is a description. That is why we have interpretation, so it can make sense in the real world. I think given a few more years and some technological advancements we won't need the interpretations, because we will be able to see (or hopefully) what it is QM is saying about our world.

I agree. But in all honesty I personally think Quantum theory will lead us to realize many truths that the anceint sages and shaman from east and west have potrayed for thousands and hunreds of years. For an example David Bohm's holographic theory says that the universe is one. Which mystics have been saying since their works have been recorded.

Thank you so much for watching the youtube clip and giving me your opinion. It fascinates me to hears other peoples ideas. Is our universe just one of many ideas which manifested physically? Who knows!