The singularity didn't exist within anything, right? Because "within" is a word connoting space, and there was no space-time.
I don't see why the fact that that doesn't make sense linguistically precludes it being close to the truth. Our language can't handle everything, like the very different conditions at the start of the universe. If the equations suggest that there was zero volume, and then an instant later a rapidly accelerating amount of volume, then I'm with the equations. Doesn't bother me that the phrase "the singularity simply existed, without particularly being within anything" doesn't make sense. (Although of course it's fascinating that physics suggests a result that's so counterintuitive - that's why amateur philosophers love funky physics findings.) On Aug 26, 8:16 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > Just a fine point MB, but I don't think you can equate a vacuum with > nothing. A vacuum is a vacuum, the absence of atmosphere, but clearly > matter can exist in a vacuum as can light waves and radio waves. But > nothing is just that. Nothing. No thing. The absence of > everything. > > Regards the big bang (which is also a tv sitcom I enjoy), if that was > the singularity from which all we consider to be in our universe > emerged, within what did that singularity exist prior to going bang. > > Nor do I think my statements preclude the usefulness of anything we > have discovered regardless the errors we assume about it. We are a > very resourceful species and made much of what we have discovered so > far, right wrong or indifferent. I just hope we mature out of > adolescence before we discover something we could really hurt > ourselves with. > > /e > > On Aug 26, 11:09 am, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > You also mention that pursuant to current observations the universe is > > > expanding which leads me to ask expanding into what. For the universe > > > to expand it has to have boundaries beyond which it is expanding > > > therefore postulating something else outside the boundaries of our > > > universe. > > > I think the "universe" refers to the space-time continuum. Outside the > > universe is a vacuum - just as before the universe emerged from the > > Big Bang, there was a vacuum, i.e., nothing. > > > As far as we know from the current state of scientific knowledge, the > > universe is expanding in the sense that it began from a single point, > > and that the things furthest away from us appear to be getting even > > further away. The fact that it doesn't make linguistic sense to > > postulate "boundaries" to the universe is (at least according to > > modern physics) more a function of deficiencies in our language and > > understanding than it is a knock on the theory that the universe is > > expanding. > > > While I can't pretend to intuitively understand what it would mean for > > the universe to simultaneously be "all that there is" yet to be able > > to expand into something else, we can still talk about it > > analogically. "Outside" the universe is a vacuum, and the reason the > > universe is able to expand is because it is made of real "stuff," > > i.e., space-time. The picture that conjures is of a giant fabric > > expanding into infinite blackness. Clearly, this picture is not > > "accurate," any more than it was accurate to think of electrons going > > around the nucleus as shiny balls of energy smoothly orbiting in > > perfect circles. But it's a model that presumably has some truth to > > it, just as the electron orbital model does. By not being perfectly > > accurate, it leaves lots of stuff out, but that doesn't make it > > useless. Newtonian physics was quite useful for 300 years before being > > updated. Unlike some other things in science, it seems that Newtonian > > physics needed to be modified rather than thrown out entirely - > > hopefully, the same is true for the well-established concepts in > > modern physics. > > > On Aug 26, 9:40 am, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Justin, I do think there is a difference between the universe and > > > infinity. We have no idea whether or not the universe we seem to be a > > > part of is all there is unless you are assigning infinity to our > > > universe, but there is no evidence for it. As an example, we have no > > > idea where black holes might lead, if they lead anywhere at all, but > > > if they do lead somewhere it just might be another universe. As such > > > I find it difficult to consider the universe we know as being all > > > inclusive. > > > > You also mention that pursuant to current observations the universe is > > > expanding which leads me to ask expanding into what. For the universe > > > to expand it has to have boundaries beyond which it is expanding > > > therefore postulating something else outside the boundaries of our > > > universe. > > > > Just as infinity, a concept created by human beings, is unprovable and > > > unknowable -- at least in our current state of awareness and being. > > > Ideas and theories such as this are for us nothing more than mental > > > playtoys. Such as it is with your statement that nothing can go > > > faster than light. According to the theories and postulations we > > > currently possess it appears that nothing can go faster than light, > > > but even that is a very narrow statement because we know so little > > > about the universe. > > > > On Aug 26, 2:53 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > According to relativity spacetime is a continuum. A set can be be > > > > infinite, finite and unbounded, or finite and bounded. The case of > > > > finite and bounded is excluded for current theory, and maybe > > > > necessarily so since the term "universe" is all inclusive so it would > > > > include whatever was on the other side of the boundary. That leaves > > > > the cases of infinite or finite and unbounded. > > > > > The idea of finite and unbounded is like a basketball surface. It has > > > > no edge even though it is not infinite like a plane. If the universe > > > > were finite and unbounded and spherical then no matter which direction > > > > in space you went you would end up back where we are. Something like > > > > that may in fact be the case. > > > > > Whether the universe is finite and unbounded or infinite is a question > > > > the answer to which is not currently scientifically known. My > > > > understanding is that the recent observations include a universe that > > > > is expanding at an increasing rate. If that is true then the universe > > > > is no longer behaving like current scientific theories predict and the > > > > theoretical physicists have work to do. > > > > > If you want to know what a continuum is consider this... Imagine a > > > > point on a plane. Now imagine a small disc around that point. Now > > > > imagine a smaller disc. For every disc size you give me, if there is a > > > > continuum, I can find a smaller disc that is made up of points in the > > > > continuum. So if you draw a 1 inch circle then I can draw a 1/2 inch > > > > circle and if you draw a 1/2 circle I can draw a 1/4 inch circle etc. > > > > If that is true for every point then the set of points is continuous. > > > > The only problem with this idea is if there is a boundary point. If > > > > you choose a point on the boundary you cannot draw a circle all the > > > > way around but you could draw something like a half circle. But we are > > > > excluding bound sets so no problem! There are better more formal > > > > definitions on the internet in the wiki. > > > > > Now imagine a line segment with a start and endpoint ... say the > > > > points on a line from zero to one. Then that set has a boundary. The > > > > points zero is one boundary and the point one is another. But if you > > > > take the line segment from zero to one and then exclude the point zero > > > > and the point one you now have an unbounded set! > > > > > The numbers 1, 2, 3 etc are not a continuum because if you take the > > > > number 2 for example and I give you the number 1 for example you can't > > > > find a neighborhood around 2 that is closer to 2 than 1 but contains 2 > > > > and other numbers. But fractions are a continuum because if you give > > > > the number 2 for example and I give you the number 1 for example then > > > > you can say "all the points from 1 and 1/2 to the 2" All those points > > > > are closer to 2 than 1. If I give you 1 1/2 then you give me 1 3/4. > > > > Now try to find a number that that doesn't work for.... If I give you > > > > 1.9you give me 1.99. If I give you 1.99 you give me 1.999 etc. If I > > > > give you 1.999999999 you give 1.9999999999! > > > > > In fact there was some theoretical work in physics that postulated > > > > that time and space were not continuous but were discreet or > > > > quantized. As far as I know the work never gelled into an acceptable > > > > theory. > > > > > What is interesting is the relationship between time and space. > > > > Spacetime was a 4 dimensional continuum before Einstiein. What he > > > > found was that what is for one person two points or events imagined at > > > > the same time but separated by a distance and that therefore determine > > > > a length become two points that are not at the same time for the > > > > other person and so the points no longer are a length (which is an > > > > interval of space) but are now an interval of space and an interval of > > > > time. So a purely spatial interval becomes a space and time interval. > > > > So for example today now here a gun goes off and in Washington DC at > > > > the same time a gun goes off. That now becomes today here and now a > > > > gun goes off and then latter in Washington DC a gun goes off. > > > > Actually, it was a man named Minkowski who sort of summarized Einstein > > > > this way. > > > > > It does not mean that time and space are really the same thing > > > > however. Locally, for any given observer they are very different. > > > > > Also, time is related to material causality, so you can have a circle > > > > in space but not one in time. The universe may be spherical spatially > > > > but not in time because it causes problems with causality. (However, > > > > you can imagine a universe that repeats and in a sense that is a > > > > circle in time! Its just that if you are to preserve causality you > > > > describe it as a line that just repeats. How subtle the ideas of > > > > physics!) Relativity does preserve the ability to have material > > > > causality since no signal can go "faster than light" meaning that > > > > nothing here can cause something over there before light could reach > > > > it. If such an effect were discovered then the center of relativity > > > > theory would be destroyed. It is all based on that assumption. > > > > Therefore the future need not be determined in relativity. Causality > > > > can exist but > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
