You're right there, lol!
The thing is its not a philosophical discussion anymore, because atomic clocks can measure it. So over a lifetime, your feet will in reality be a tiny bit younger than your head.
Sure, that doesn't matter much to anyone. But it starts a philosophical thought process which leads to trying to conceive of a condition outside of time. As the OP says: Can time exists without matter? No.
So where does time/space come from? It all came into being 13.4 billion years ago. But where from? No, hang on: there was no 'where' before space. Time started 13.4 billion years ago.
Weird ...
It's where science breaks down. What is energy? From what/where did it originate?
yeah the!
From what condition before anything existed did all the energy of the universe, and stranger still the forces that govern energy, come into being? And time and space? Scientists can't answer it.
That's my thing, lol
That's my thing, lol
Last edited:
LOL that's my thing. Life after death, life before birth, is there a God, what was here before time space matter. I am more interested in questions that can be answered, problems that can be solved, hugging, feeding, caring for the people in front of me.
By that reasoning money spent on space exploration or large hadron colliders should rather be spent on feeding the poor? No use for art or literature.
Who said you can't do both? Christ managed it pretty well ...
It would be over 20 yrs by several participating countries. Its not like NASA. It's international collaboration. I'm all for it..
*edited
Last edited:
@Thomas
Ok, perhaps not another collider specifically. But the principle. Problem is at LHC energies the String/M-Theorists haven't been able to find the super-symmetric particles they require, so they want to go to higher energies. But they still might not find them.
If they did, it would unify quantum/gravity. Huge discovery. And of course a lot of spin-off discoveries by a new collider too. But a lot of Standard Model people have started to write off the possibility of ever finding evidence for string theory. Money better spent elsewhere ...
Ok, perhaps not another collider specifically. But the principle. Problem is at LHC energies the String/M-Theorists haven't been able to find the super-symmetric particles they require, so they want to go to higher energies. But they still might not find them.
If they did, it would unify quantum/gravity. Huge discovery. And of course a lot of spin-off discoveries by a new collider too. But a lot of Standard Model people have started to write off the possibility of ever finding evidence for string theory. Money better spent elsewhere ...
Last edited:
Again, there is me and others, my contemplation on these topics will not usher in life on mars or a hadron collider...a
S
socrat44
Guest
Time/space appeared after''singularity'' explosion that was named ''big-bang''
and vice versa . . . ''big-bang'' created the ''singularity'' and so . . . and so . . .
''singularity'' created ''b-b'' and ''big-bang'' created ''s'' . . .
. . . “it’s turtles all the way down”
''b-b'' doesn't explain: where did mater itself come from ?
====
Last edited by a moderator:
Why not? Lots of energy around, from the explosion, matter is energy (with a conversion factor that is a natural constant)? What's lacking as explanations go?
Yes but where/what did the energy come from. What is energy anyway? Can you answer that?
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed: after it was first created, lol.
It came from the big bang. But what was the big bang? It was the instant of creation of energy and the forces that organise energy. Call it origination instead of creation, if you like. It makes no difference really.
So it's: give me one original miracle, and I'll tell you how it all worked out from there ...
Last edited:
S
socrat44
Guest
.. . one original miracle
What was in the beginning: an egg or a chicken. ''b-b'' or ''s'' ?
===
What was in the beginning: an egg or a chicken. ''b-b'' or ''s'' ?
===
It's one of the quantities that are conserved in the universe.
As to the big bang: no, that was not a moment in time. Just as it's not possible to accelerate a mass to light speed, as the energy required to do so would become infinite as you approached light speed, the conditions of the universe also approach states that are not possible, if you approach the big bang. That's what the singularity means.
Finally, are you sure you want to go to the "where did matter come from" question? The same can be asked about the creator, after all. Nothing to be gained in such a discussion.
The inflation following the BB happened at much faster than light speed. Ok, its supposed to be the expansion space/time itself, not of particles. Still, inflation is a band-aid. Impossible conditions, as you said.
Matter came from the organisation of energy by the four forces and by gravity.
Where did energy come from? And the forces?
Correct the BB wasn't a moment in time, or a place in space. It was the beginning of time and space. And of all the energy in the universe. And all the forces. Energy originated from the BB singularity.
What is energy?
Please address the question.
So again: from what condition did energy originate, in order to be conserved?
*edited. Sorry
Last edited:
Yes. I do. Very much.
At least one universe worth of it. 100/200 billion stars in our galaxy, 100/200 billion other galaxies in the observable universe.
Apart from finding some smart aliens, can man be the highest intelligence in this wonderfully functional universe that just miraculously happened itself out of no-when?
Last edited:
Yeah, the inflation theory is a band-aid. People are working on a better understanding. I like that.
I don't know of any inherent meaning or purpose of energy, if that's your question. That opens up a lot of possibilities, right? I mean that in a positive sense. I know you have something in mind, and there are many different ways to find meaning in our universe.
The most interesting property of energy, to me, is precisely that it is conserved. That in itself is already very meaningful to me, though I know it sounds like nothing much to many people.
Gravity is fascinating, and a bit of the odd one out among the four forces. But there is matter which does not interact with gravity, like the neutrinos. Matter is not the same as mass.
I don't think it makes sense to think of the universe as coming, originating, or otherwise being within, embedded, or emanating from something else. But maybe we are using the word in different ways? To me, the universe is all there is. If there were something external to it, then we would not be talking about the universe, but about a subset of it. In the sense I am using the word, there cannot be multiple or nested universes, or places or conditions outside the universe - all of that together is the universe, to me. That does not mean I am not open to the possibility of discovering more about the universe, which is not yet covered by our understanding of it. I'm not saying there is not more to the universe than what we have found. Just that whatever we might discover, would also be part of the universe.
That's why I said it would be fruitless to go there. After all, it's the same as asking who created the creator. Or where is the book that lists all the numbers in existence. In the end, we'd be bickering over definitions. I've done that only a million times in discussions such as this.
S
socrat44
Guest
The Universe (as whole) is homogeneous and isotropic
and therefore after every 100/200 billion stars in our galaxy
there are another 100/200 billion other galaxies one and so, and so, and so. . .
#
The cosmic homogeneous and isotropic horizon is infinite.
====