58 replies to this topic

[slimemonkey]

We were discussing this (The Origin of the Universe) one day in my philosophy class and the debate was pretty exciting and definitely mind boggling to think about.

Basically, there can only be 2 different sides to the debate:

1. Something came from Nothing.
2. Nothing came from Nothing.

1 states that all we see now in the world did come from nothing at all; In the beginning there was nothing, and then voila! everything!.
2 implies that because nothing can come from nothing...something was always there!

This debate is, in many ways, larger than religion because many religions say that God made everything. Now, this question takes it a bit farther, where did God come from? Was he/she/it always there or did it/she/he also have an origin?

Here are my thoughts on it:
If we agree that option 2 is the answer, then something was always there. This implies that there has been infinite time that has passed until this point. Now...there itself is a paradox. What exactly is infinite time? If the past has infinite time...then we are living in the past. If there really is a past, present, and future, then the infinite time that has already passed already contains all of those...therefore we are living something that has already passed. Our whole perception of time is gone down the drain here...


Happy philosophizing!

Edited by slimemonkey, 29 April 2007 - 05:58 PM.

[sonic]

I like Einstein's/Stephen Hawking's picture.

Without getting to in-depth with the physics behind it here is a simple explenation.

The universe started out (roughly 14 billion years ago) infinitely hot, and infinitely small, and it has been expanding and cooling since then. The point of infinity is called a singularity. This theory is popularly called the big bang theory.

This theory is widely excepted not only cause of its compliance with General Relativity theory, but also because of the discovery of CMBs. (cosmic miccrowave background radiation.)

There are downfalls to the big bang theory as well.
In the universe there are areas of symmetry. Most of these areas of symmetrical with their temperature, but if special relativity is correct, then these areas would have no way to stay in "contact" with each other. There are a few answers to this problem. Quantum Entanglment theory, and inflationary theory. Both offer solutions to different aspects of the problem. Check google if you want to know more about those individual theories. It would take to long for me to explain.

[slimemonkey]

Hm...actually, another good point my friend brought up was that..something CAN start from nothing: Big Bang theory, but, there was nothing BEFORE that...to start it...because time started with the big bang.

If we follow the big bang theory, then we are forced to rethink our idea of time. Heck, we have to do that whenever we deal with singularities: ex. black holes. If time doesn't exist...can other things?

[Sweeney]

It's quite easy to tell that you're a philosopher, and not a physicist.

Besides which... does noone have any ideas for an -original- debate?

[slimemonkey]

It's quite easy to tell that you're a philosopher, and not a physicist.

Besides which... does noone have any ideas for an -original- debate?

I don't see why philosophers can't be physicists.

Anyway, I would like to somehow extend my first point made in the first post in this thread. I also think that if nothing can come out of nothing, then we are living all the time that can and has passed and will be. If this state of time must be labeled, lets call it the present.

Also, if that idea is to be followed, then, we once again are faced with the dilemma of rethinking our entire perception of time.

[Sweeney]

I didn't say they couldn't be both, I said you weren't.
Don't go putting words into my mouth, now.

[slimemonkey]

I like to think I borrow some from both fields. My post about time starting with the big bang is also tied with Einstein's theory of spacetime. Big bang theory actually states that time did start the instant of the explosion. If this is the case, then can anything exist before then? I am sorry if I didn't make this clear before. I understand where you are speaking from.

[sonic]

I like to think I borrow some from both fields. My post about time starting with the big bang is also tied with Einstein's theory of spacetime. Big bang theory actually states that time did start the instant of the explosion. If this is the case, then can anything exist before then? I am sorry if I didn't make this clear before. I understand where you are speaking from.

Are you arch angels twin brother?
Read past the surface.

lol and I agree with joe, leave the physics to someone else.
btw, a philosopher + physicist = Theoretical Physicist
but, you do have a VERY GENERAL idea of the big bang thoery. Did you read my post at all?

[Bryan]

Einstein and Hawking can blow me.

Hawking was so wrong on his theory that he had to rewrite his whole damn book. Sure, superstring theory is cool to believe, but it makes no logical sense.

Anywho, screw the big bang and divine creator, I created the earth.

[sonic]

Einstein and Hawking can blow me.

Hawking was so wrong on his theory that he had to rewrite his whole damn book. Sure, superstring theory is cool to believe, but it makes no logical sense.

Anywho, screw the big bang and divine creator, I created the earth.

Hawking was not wrong, it was just altered.

[slimemonkey]

Are you arch angels twin brother?
Read past the surface.

lol and I agree with joe, leave the physics to someone else.
btw, a philosopher + physicist = Theoretical Physicist
but, you do have a VERY GENERAL idea of the big bang thoery. Did you read my post at all?

I will do more research on the big bang theory before posting in this thread again. Thank you for pointing that out.


EDIT: But, with all due respect, I would simply like to talk about the big bang theory and how it applies to my original question. You (Sonic) even stated that at the time of the big bang, there was the point of singularity - the point where space was infinitely dense/condensed and there was infinite heat.

Now to talk about Einstein's theories. He stated that space and time are connected in a mesh known as spacetime. He then continued to say that as space gets more dense, it alters time itself. This is what I was referring to earlier in the case of black holes. The singularity border of the black holes are the borders between infinite density and normal density. If someone crosses the border, then the people outside (well assuming that light does indeed travel back to the observer) would see no movement of the person who has crossed.

Basically, my point was that at this point of singularity, time stops, and that time is part of the mesh called timespace therefore...without space, there can be no time. Given this as the case, how can there be a before the big bang?

Please do correct me if I am wrong in any of my statements.

Once again, my purpose is NOT to challenge anyone's ideas or to prove anyone wrong. I am writing here purely for the sake of talking about ideas and debating.

Edited by slimemonkey, 30 April 2007 - 09:29 PM.

[Bryan]

Hawking was not wrong, it was just altered.

Alterations are nothing more than recreations of a defect.

[sonic]

I will do more research on the big bang theory before posting in this thread again. Thank you for pointing that out.
EDIT: But, with all due respect, I would simply like to talk about the big bang theory and how it applies to my original question. You (Sonic) even stated that at the time of the big bang, there was the point of singularity - the point where space was infinitely dense/condensed and there was infinite heat.

Now to talk about Einstein's theories. He stated that space and time are connected in a mesh known as spacetime. He then continued to say that as space gets more dense, it alters time itself. This is what I was referring to earlier in the case of black holes. The singularity border of the black holes are the borders between infinite density and normal density. If someone crosses the border, then the people outside (well assuming that light does indeed travel back to the observer) would see no movement of the person who has crossed.

Basically, my point was that at this point of singularity, time stops, and that time is part of the mesh called timespace therefore...without space, there can be no time. Given this as the case, how can there be a before the big bang?

Please do correct me if I am wrong in any of my statements.

Once again, my purpose is NOT to challenge anyone's ideas or to prove anyone wrong. I am writing here purely for the sake of talking about ideas and debating.

If you knew the views of hawking then you would know that "There is no point thinking about time before the big bang, it was not there".....
I said I agree with hawking.....

Oh and its not just the density that alters time. Its gravity.

Alterations are nothing more than recreations of a defect.

Eh hawking radiation did more good then bad.
Hell even Einstein had his stupid "cosmological Constant" that he called the biggest mistake of his life.

[slimemonkey]

Oh and its not just the density that alters time. Its gravity.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought, based on Einstein's theories, gravity is nothing but warps in this spacetime...which is cause BY the density of the objects? So..in other words, gravity IS density.

And..tying what you just said (about agreeing with Hawking that there is not before the big bang) to the main question, are you siding with the first option that something had to have come from nothing?

[Cataliste]

I kinda glimpsed through this all, so here I go:

I personally believe everything came from nothing. String theory will help you understand.


Now, about time before the "big bang". The big bang is stated as an eruption of everything in the universe, from a single point that was INFINITELY small. Ok, infinites are fun, because if it was infinitely small, and we *assume* that from what we can see, the universe is virtually infinitely big, then it has infinite mass. Now, infinite mass in a single point would create time dilation, so because it was infinitely small, and had infinite mass, it had infinite time dilation, which means that time did not exist in/around/beside it. So, time did not exist before i started moving when everything came from no where. Stephen Hawking, eat your heart out (assuming your mouth still works).

[sonic]

I kinda glimpsed through this all, so here I go:

I personally believe everything came from nothing. String theory will help you understand.
Now, about time before the "big bang". The big bang is stated as an eruption of everything in the universe, from a single point that was INFINITELY small. Ok, infinites are fun, because if it was infinitely small, and we *assume* that from what we can see, the universe is virtually infinitely big, then it has infinite mass. Now, infinite mass in a single point would create time dilation, so because it was infinitely small, and had infinite mass, it had infinite time dilation, which means that time did not exist in/around/beside it. So, time did not exist before i started moving when everything came from no where. Stephen Hawking, eat your heart out (assuming your mouth still works).

cata your dumb.
There is a finite amount of energy/mass in the universe....

[slimemonkey]

I kinda glimpsed through this all, so here I go:

I personally believe everything came from nothing. String theory will help you understand.
Now, about time before the "big bang". The big bang is stated as an eruption of everything in the universe, from a single point that was INFINITELY small. Ok, infinites are fun, because if it was infinitely small, and we *assume* that from what we can see, the universe is virtually infinitely big, then it has infinite mass. Now, infinite mass in a single point would create time dilation, so because it was infinitely small, and had infinite mass, it had infinite time dilation, which means that time did not exist in/around/beside it. So, time did not exist before i started moving when everything came from no where. Stephen Hawking, eat your heart out (assuming your mouth still works).

I have a few things I want to talk about here. First of all, I just read the other thread about the ideas of time and GOD. I do NOT want this to become a flaming crazy ... hating board or whatever.

Now: Time dilation is a relative concept. You cannot...feel the "time dilation" without a point of reference OUTSIDE of the actual "dilation". Even in the case of black holes...where there is infinite density...the person getting sucked in won't feel their own time...slow down.

In any case, I think this question, in light of what I just read from the other thread about Time, heavily depends on your opinion of time...and existence...ex. can something exist at no time? so..can something exist when..there really was...no...time

Sonic: Cata said just by looking out and assuming. Lets play nice

Also, would infinite density ... imply infinite mass?

[sonic]

something exist when..there really was...no...time

The million dollar question....
In my opinion/hawking's/einstine's nope....
It would be pointless to talk about a time before time.

[slimemonkey]

ahha! time before time! now...... hm....

*becomes brain fried...*

*chugs down loads of caffeine*

1. it depends on your perception of time...if we are talking simply about the measuring unit time...for simple point of reference...there is never a beginning because you can refer to BEFORE that beginning.

2. if we are talking about...well, i guess realistic time...um....i suppose there IS no point in talking about time before time. However! there is point in talking about...the start of time..whatever that is and ... existence before time.

NOW, the concept of "before" and "after" come hand in hand WITH time...someone finish this sentence/thought for me.

[Cataliste]

cata your dumb.
There is a finite amount of energy/mass in the universe....

And that'd the major flaw behind everything you ever say. You assume. Atleast I have the ability to concede that it is possible I am wrong.

Please, use physics (laws, not theories) and tell me the is finite mass. It is part of the human limitation to actually need limitations, the universe, i doubt, sees such need for smoething as perverse as following the rules defined by us.

[sonic]

And that'd the major flaw behind everything you ever say. You assume. Atleast I have the ability to concede that it is possible I am wrong.

Please, use physics (laws, not theories) and tell me the is finite mass. It is part of the human limitation to actually need limitations, the universe, i doubt, sees such need for smoething as perverse as following the rules defined by us.

uh....cata
e=mc2 would not work with a universe that has an infinite mass?
If there was infinite mass then that means infinite energy, and that means we could all go faster than light....

[slimemonkey]

Cata:
About the mass of the universe..I wonder if you can turn around what I said earlier and say that since we are not experiencing infinite density around us...there must be a finite mass.

If there was infinite mass in the universe...then...there would be infinite mass EVERYWHERE right?...we have a measured mass.

I am surprised no one has referred to calculus for anything yet even though we are dealing with infinities.

EDIT: I also thought of something to counter this point...if there is infinite space in the universe...then it might be able to account for the infinite mass...and somehow work out

Hey! We don't know everything about the universe! We can only speculate for now...

Edited by slimemonkey, 30 April 2007 - 10:33 PM.

[sonic]

Cata:
About the mass of the universe..I wonder if you can turn around what I said earlier and say that since we are not experiencing infinite density around us...there must be a finite mass.

If there was infinite mass in the universe...then...there would be infinite mass EVERYWHERE right?...we have a measured mass.

I am surprised no one has referred to calculus for anything yet even though we are dealing with infinities.

EDIT: I also thought of something to counter this point...if there is infinite space in the universe...then it might be able to account for the infinite mass...and somehow work out

Hey! We don't know everything about the universe! We can only speculate for now...

We do know the exact amount of mass in the universe......
just not what half of it is....aka dark energy/matter

[slimemonkey]

We know the exact mass of the universe?!?! I thought we could just approximate the mass of some of the stars and such and then its all up to approximation...

Not to mention, dark matter takes up to 75% of the universe...but what I am talking about is infinite space in the universe.

There is a big chance I am wrong though..because scientists probably know the general shape of the universe, which in turn proves that there is, in fact, finite space in the universe.

[Cataliste]

But sonic, you are banking that e=mc2 is a law. Look, I am just playing devil's advocate here. I'm only saying that we really have no idea how the universe operates.

We know the exact mass of the universe?!?! I thought we could just approximate the mass of some of the stars and such and then its all up to approximation...

Not to mention, dark matter takes up to 75% of the universe...but what I am talking about is infinite space in the universe.

There is a big chance I am wrong though..because scientists probably know the general shape of the universe, which in turn proves that there is, in fact, finite space in the universe.

The most logical shape (not saying this is true) is a sphere, everything in nature tries to be sphere because that exposes the least amount of surface area. Then again, the universe has nothing outside it (assuming it is not infinite) to expose to so it could be shaped like the letter "F" for all we know! xD Physics is are be fun!