Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
They happen all the time. They are a property of space/time.
You cannot use scientific observation in this universe to determine "a reason" why it exists.
It is pure nonsense.
You say "..space/time did not arise without reason and the reason was 'Quantum fluctuation'."
and then say "they happen all the time" .. what definintion of 'time' are you referring to??
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
This is a fact of science. It happens in all atoms, in every single Planck's moment (1 x 10 raised to power -32 second). If you are not aware of atomic physics, it is not my fault.
Feynman Diagram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram
Irrelevant. What definintion of 'time' are you referring to?
Scientific observations apply to the here & now .. they are not valid without a universe to observe.
..so, what are you talking about? How can that be a reason for the universe to appear in the first place?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
I am going through a very deep topic on time in another forum. One member had this to say:
"I would say we have a sensation of time, what we could call subjective time. And? How would you know that to be a reflection of reality. Maybe it is, but how would you know that?"
There is much more. Time is a mirage.
If they are a property of time and space then how do they exist before time and space.. because wouldn't they have to in order to trigger the big bang?
Like I said, you are just pushing the problem bit further away in order to avoid dealing with the infinite regress that your position creates.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
My view (science is working on that, the answer is not likely to be available very soon, not at least in my life-time), is that existence and non-existence are just phases, like you switch the lights on and off. There is no basic difference. The dark phase has the potential for light, and the light phase has potential for darkness.
If you want instant answer, and not verified truth, then there are religions.
If you want instant answer, and not verified truth, then there are religions.
Light and darkness are not opposites. Darkness is the lack of light, which is not the same thing. The light of a candle in a cave takes away the darkness -- and the light can get greater and greater: a sun, ten suns, ten million suns -- but the depth of a cave is totality of darkness. There is no light. It can't get darker than that.
Only electromagnetic energy (light) can travel at light speed. Matter cannot reach light speed; it gets heavier the faster it goes, until at light speed it would become infinitely heavy, which cannot happen.
A photon of light travelling at light speed would see no universe, there would be nothing to see. Not even empty space.
But if some sort of outside energy could somehow begin to slow down, it would heat up and break up into particles and these newly created particles might see other sorts of particles begin to appear around them from out of 'nothingness and nowhere' -- photons and gluons and quarks or strings, whatever.
To the new particles it would look a lot like a sort of big bang universe coming into existence. The slowing down of some sort of outside energy would generate braking heat, like a spacecraft re-entry, and that would be the heat of the early quark-gluon soup expanding universe?
They would perceive the Big Bang as a braking/slowing down event, rather than as an 'explosion'. Like looking through the wrong end of a telescope, and seeing as if through a microscope instead -- or vice versa. Interesting stuff, imo.
Only electromagnetic energy (light) can travel at light speed. Matter cannot reach light speed; it gets heavier the faster it goes, until at light speed it would become infinitely heavy, which cannot happen.
A photon of light travelling at light speed would see no universe, there would be nothing to see. Not even empty space.
But if some sort of outside energy could somehow begin to slow down, it would heat up and break up into particles and these newly created particles might see other sorts of particles begin to appear around them from out of 'nothingness and nowhere' -- photons and gluons and quarks or strings, whatever.
To the new particles it would look a lot like a sort of big bang universe coming into existence. The slowing down of some sort of outside energy would generate braking heat, like a spacecraft re-entry, and that would be the heat of the early quark-gluon soup expanding universe?
They would perceive the Big Bang as a braking/slowing down event, rather than as an 'explosion'. Like looking through the wrong end of a telescope, and seeing as if through a microscope instead -- or vice versa. Interesting stuff, imo.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
I have never used the words 'Verified Truth'. As you would say 'Verified Truth' is only in scriptures, offered by prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis of Allah.
Science is trying to find what they do not know. At the moment the closest is 'virtual particle'. The reason this is my best guess is becuse an eternal Allah or an eternal universe, both require 'special pleading'. That problem vanishes only if one takes existence and non-existence as phases, two phases of one coin. Our books mention that:
"Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent there is no endurance and of the eternal there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both." BhagadGita 2.16
"All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation?" BhagadGita 2.28
"THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it.
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not."
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm (Creation)
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
The explosion that preceded Big Bang is known as inflation - Cosmic Inflation.
"It explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the Universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation). Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the universe appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic), why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
Last edited:
Inflation came soon after the big bang. That's if there was such a thing as inflation. Is that what you mean? It simply fills a gap to explain how the universe expanded so quickly straight after the BB. It's a bit like dark matter: we don't have a clue, so let's just call it inflation and that will balances the math.
Nothing came before the big bang.
Last edited:
..oh there is such a thing as inflation.
The price of toilet paper is rocketing atm
Is that 'nothing' as in absence of something .. or 'something' more sinister
No. As previously discussed, that would be a void or an emptiness.
Nothing simply is not, never was, never will be and never can be -- in nature.
It's not even a hole in space.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Check. We know about Big Bang, it is the inflation which is the problem. That is the event horizon, not Big Bang.
Not sinister, but it has to show some evidence, like "Have we not parted the moon in two".Is that 'nothing' as in absence of something .. or 'something' more sinister
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
OK. Time started at Big Bang but the event horizon is at inflation. Big bang to Inflation is an uncharted period of time..
"With an incomplete theory of quantum gravity, it is impossible to be certain what spacetime would look like at small scales. However, there is no reason that spacetime needs to be fundamentally smooth. It is possible that instead, in a quantum theory of gravity, spacetime would consist of many small, ever-changing regions in which space and time are not definite, but fluctuate in a foam-like manner.
Wheeler suggested that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle might imply that over sufficiently small distances and sufficiently brief intervals of time, the "very geometry of spacetime fluctuates". These fluctuations could be large enough to cause significant departures from the smooth spacetime seen at macroscopic scales, giving spacetime a "foamy" character."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam
"With an incomplete theory of quantum gravity, it is impossible to be certain what spacetime would look like at small scales. However, there is no reason that spacetime needs to be fundamentally smooth. It is possible that instead, in a quantum theory of gravity, spacetime would consist of many small, ever-changing regions in which space and time are not definite, but fluctuate in a foam-like manner.
Wheeler suggested that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle might imply that over sufficiently small distances and sufficiently brief intervals of time, the "very geometry of spacetime fluctuates". These fluctuations could be large enough to cause significant departures from the smooth spacetime seen at macroscopic scales, giving spacetime a "foamy" character."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam
Last edited: