how can you create something from nothing ?

[PB666]

I think the question "what was there before the big bang?" is valid, if worded confusingly. It's all good and well to say that time started at the big bang and there is no "before" that for anything to be in, but that statement itself pre-supposes the laws of physics. Those laws have complexity, order, they can't just have poofed into existence at the start of time with no cause or explanation. If they did, there would be no reason we have this particular set of laws, rather than some arbitrary other set.

Now this is a confusing question, because even if you did find a reason for why we have these specific laws of physics you could just follow the rabbit hole further down (eg. if we are living in a computer simulation, what laws is the computer running on?). There is probably always going to be some point where we are just going to have to admit that we don't know yet.

There as in where? youve just dimensionally shrunk the universe to a point so the dimensions of space-time no longer exist, where is not difficult to define, then through in QM of a single point state.

Ok so I guess what you are trying to say is that some'replace-the-word-thing-for-point-state-with-unfathomable-qualities' existed 13.8+ billion year ago. Possibly true, impossible to prove, and if it were a QM state 'time before' is very messy in terms of what we think time is and how it progressed.

While you follow the rabbit into the hole you notice the rabbit begin to shrink and devovle into a pleciosaur, a fish, a lamphey, tunicate, protozoan, archea, ....then it dissovled and its molecules dissociated and the hole dissappearred and everything went black.

[Darnok]

They don't. Matter and energy can change forms, but they can't be created or destroyed.

They can be... black holes are destroying matter and are creating "space", that is why space is expanding around galaxies.

To create matter you need space and energy, of course creating matter will shrink universe a bit... just like it has happen before, but "scientists" still believe in inflation and big bang model.

- - - Updated - - -

That's simply because you don't understand what time is.

IMO you drifted so far on artificial human constructs, hypothesis and models so far that you can't see reality...

Can you tell me how you measure time and what it is?

[K^2]

IMO you drifted so far on artificial human constructs, hypothesis and models so far that you can't see reality...

Can you tell me how you measure time and what it is?

I have just explained three physical quantities we mean by time. Proper time is trivially measured. A clock measures its own proper time because its evolution is tied to time-parameter. The space-time coordinate time is measured by placing an object in the releavant rest frame and measuring its proper time. Again, clock works quite well. And statistical time is merely an ordering based on entropy, so you just need something that requires entropy increase to advance. Like a clock. So depending on which thing you mean by time, you measure it with clock, clock, or clock. Surprising, no?

The problem with the oppinions, is that they are like butt holes. Education, on the other hand, seems to be a rare comodity.

[ZetaX]

I think the question "what was there before the big bang?" is valid, if worded confusingly. It's all good and well to say that time started at the big bang and there is no "before" that for anything to be in, but that statement itself pre-supposes the laws of physics. Those laws have complexity, order, they can't just have poofed into existence at the start of time with no cause or explanation. If they did, there would be no reason we have this particular set of laws, rather than some arbitrary other set.

There simply has to be no reason for this particular set. It's like asking the lottery winner why him and not his neighbour. It simply happened and we are now there observing it. The only thing truly necessary for that was "to buy the lottery ticket", which in this case means that we are talking about a universe that can bringt forth sufficiently intelligent life.

What experimental evidence indicates that differential geometry is anything more than a hypothesis? I have read about precisely none, and in terms of factual validity, these theories are only slightly better than turtles all the way down.

And even if you have a theory that time is a property that is related to the geometry of the universe, what about causality...

Differential Geometry is pure mathematics and therefore much more than a hypothesis. Doubting it is akin to doubting that 1+1=2 (which by the way is the definition of 2) or that logic itself applies; in which case you could just assume that anything happens, because screw logic!

What you probably wanted to say is that relativity is a hypothesis, but that is also wrong: we have lots of evidence for it. In regard to causility, I recommend looking up the most recent (or any?) FTL thread here; it was already explained there that causaility is not a necessity, but only something we are used to.

Claims that "there has to be something before the big bang" are in the end an argument from ignorance: one simply thinks there is always a "before" and that everything exists inside "something". But there is no evidence for this. The geometry of spacetime surely doesn't need such things (and forget whatever bad analogy of the universe you have; learn some differential geometry if you really want to understand this).

It is perfecly fine to ask ourselves how the universe might have started, or maybe more precisely how it came to be as an entity. But to expect meaningful answers at a point in our history where we only knew relativity for a hundred years is foolish.

Edited November 6, 2015 by ZetaX

[Darnok]

I have just explained three physical quantities we mean by time.

What you explained is how you use "time" as parameter in different concepts/models... any object made from matter has width, height and thickness, those parameters are properties of that object we study, what kind of object property is time?

I think you are confusing behaviour of object with its properties and if you measure behaviour instead of properties you can create artificial concepts like QM

This is same as flat-earth community, that justify their beliefs and calculations by adding few more forces and particles.

[K^2]

artificial concepts like QM

And that's where I leave this conversation, because I have standards.

[Silver_Swift]

There simply has to be no reason for this particular set. It's like asking the lottery winner why him and not his neighbour. It simply happened and we are now there observing it. The only thing truly necessary for that was "to buy the lottery ticket", which in this case means that we are talking about a universe that can bringt forth sufficiently intelligent life.

Well, when it comes to lottery tickets, those are drawn using some physical process that is either fully deterministic or at least obeys certain rules (probabilities), but which in any case is very well understood (how else would we know that is sufficiently random?). We don't have probability distributions for the laws of physics that could have been.

There is an open question here, some unexplained phenomena. It is not necessarily something we have to or even can understand, but complexity doesn't come out of nowhere, so there has to be something. I think PB666 extended the metaphor quite nicely with the rabbit de-evolving and everything going black. Point is, I kinda want to now how the blackness works.

[Findthepin1]

Can we create space

[SomeGuy12]

Differential Geometry is pure mathematics and therefore much more than a hypothesis. Doubting it is akin to doubting that 1+1=2 (which by the way is the definition of 2) or that logic itself applies; in which case you could just assume that anything happens, because screw logic!

What you probably wanted to say is that relativity is a hypothesis, but that is also wrong: we have lots of evidence for it. In regard to causility, I recommend looking up the most recent (or any?) FTL thread here; it was already explained there that causaility is not a necessity, but only something we are used to.

Claims that "there has to be something before the big bang" are in the end an argument from ignorance: one simply thinks there is always a "before" and that everything exists inside "something". But there is no evidence for this. The geometry of spacetime surely doesn't need such things (and forget whatever bad analogy of the universe you have; learn some differential geometry if you really want to understand this).

Relativity != differential geometry. You can have one without the other. And I'm not saying the math isn't valid, I'm saying there's no empirical proof that this is how the universe really works (and therefore the non observed conclusions are correct, as in, things we can't measure that differential geometry predicts are true)

It's like string theory. Vibrating strings use very simple equations and there's a way to build a whole theory of everything based on ever more esoteric math. Inconveniently, the "strings", if they are even real, are too small to ever detect with any experiment anyone has ever proposed, and it's very likely they are not even real.

(the reason it's vanishingly unlikely the strings are real entities is because there's a near infinite number of ways to build up a hypothesis from whatever math you have on hand to describe your observations. since we have no actual empirical detection of strings they probably don't actually exist)

This differential geometry stuff is just one possible explanation for time that is not necessarily in any way correct.

[fredinno]

This is crazy. It's not rocket science, it's worse!!!

[ZetaX]

We don't have probability distributions for the laws of physics that could have been.

Why¿ Sure, we don't know that we have, but we also don't know that we do not have them. We simply know nothing here. Also, you don't need a probability distribution, but only a set (well, not even that, but I won't go that much into mathematics now).

I find it really annoying that those here that do not know higher mathematics need examples and allegories (instead of learning it the proper way), but then get very nitpicky about details (e.g. now taking the lottery example into stochastics, or taking the north pole one into geography). Guys, that's not going to work. Either believe that those that deal with this stuff on a daily basis are not just bull....ting you, or learn it yourself. Everything else would be pointless.

- - - Updated - - -

Relativity != differential geometry. You can have one without the other. And I'm not saying the math isn't valid, I'm saying there's no empirical proof that this is how the universe really works (and therefore the non observed conclusions are correct, as in, things we can't measure that differential geometry predicts are true)

[...]

This differential geometry stuff is just one possible explanation for time that is not necessarily in any way correct.

"Differential geometry" isn't even a theory in physics. It's a mathematical theory that can be used to describe general relativity (and thus, you would be hard-pressed to claim that relativity could exist without Differential Geometry); it could also be used to describe things that are very definitely not physics.

Stop missusing the terminology please. That's all what my post addressing you was about.

Edited November 6, 2015 by ZetaX

[SomeGuy12]

"Differential geometry" isn't even a theory in physics. It's a mathematical theory that can be used to describe general relativity (and thus, you would be hard-pressed to claim that relativity could exist without Differential Geometry); it could also be used to describe things that are very definitely not physics.

Stop missusing the terminology please. That's all what my post addressing you was about.

I'm addressing K^2's assertion that there's no "time outside the universe". In fact there could be time outside the universe, if universe 2 spawned our universe, universe 1, at a particular time. And so on. Many many theories could involve it. His north pole analogy is meaningless.

He names a theory that doesn't involve said time outside the universe, but has zero measurable evidence to back it up - thus it's just masturbation by mathematicians. It's so stupendously complex, and uses so many esoteric symbols that read as line noise to most people, that the tiny number of people who understand it are the only priests who can say anything about it. Just recently I was able to break down a similar mess of ........ math into simple rules, and get a motor drive working, and I've concluded that a lot of the math in my field is flak thrown up by marginally productive PhDs to protect their job.

There are multiple ways to represent anything, and complex math is one of the least efficient and most timewasting methods. I mean, greek symbols that get reused in every paper and mean different things...

Edited November 6, 2015 by SomeGuy12

[Thiagobs]

I'm an IT guy and my knowledge of physics is very basic and limited...

But from what I understand (and my acquired knowledge may be very wrong), there's no "before the big bang" because of how we define "time".... Time is the observation of 'things' (matter, energy) interaction, energy transfer, etc..

It's not much different of how, near the speed of light, time seems to pass slower, as the interaction of energy or matter can't occur faster than the speed of light...

Before the explosion/expansion we call 'big bang', all matter and energy were compressed in a single point. There wasn't any interaction, no energy being transferred, thus, no 'time' to go back or forward.

That's my understanding based on bits of knowledge I've acquired here and there, so I may very well be completely wrong... I would love if someone could tell me if I got this all wrong or not so much..

[ZetaX]

I'm addressing K^2's assertion that there's no "time outside the universe". In fact there could be time outside the universe, if universe 2 spawned our universe, universe 1, at a particular time. And so on. Many many theories could involve it. His north pole analogy is meaningless.

Universe is still defined as the entirety of what can be theoretically perceived (or a similiar definition). For this time outside (space)time to be relevant it needs to have an effect, however small. If it does not, there is no reason to assume it exists and not, say, that the universe is a unicorn's tear.

[SomeGuy12]

Umm... that is just a very wrong representation. But again: give us a better one than the one that is currently used.

Sure. Encapsulate math as series of functions. Write papers using html or a more complex method, and embed the math as a series of nested functions. Never reuse symbols - use complete words. Never bother with showing algabraic simplification, just encode a command to an automated algebraic simplification tool, the source of which is embedded as well. Oh, and don't perform integration if the answer is not universally applicable in your field.

If we did all this, it would cut by a factor 10 the amount of education needed to read and use and manipulate math, and it would expose a lot of poorly encoded functions accepted by mainstream science (like the fluid dynamics laws which have discontinuities in them), and it would let people who have studied a different field of math actually be able to transition to another field without another 5 years of education.

Edited November 6, 2015 by SomeGuy12

[Gaarst]

Sure. Encapsulate math as series of functions. Write papers using html or a more complex method, and embed the math as a series of nested functions. Never reuse symbols - use complete words. Never bother with showing algabraic simplification, just encode a command to an automated algebraic simplification tool, the source of which is embedded as well. Oh, and don't perform integration if the answer is not universally applicable in your field.

If we did all this, it would cut by a factor 10 the amount of education needed to read and use and manipulate math, and it would expose a lot of poorly encoded functions accepted by mainstream science (like the fluid dynamics laws which have discontinuities in them), and it would let people who have studied a different field of math actually be able to transition to another field without another 5 years of education.

Wow, sure seems like a revolutionary way to think math !

Where's your Fields medal by the way ?

[Camacha]

That's simple to answer: Nothing was never the state of affairs. There was always something, even "before" time and space existed.

We do not know whether there was something. It is the logical conclusion based on how our universe works, but since this was a state before the universe, we simply do not know whether that logic applies. It might very well that something can come from nothing when the current universal laws do not apply, but we just do not know.

[ZetaX]

Sure. Encapsulate math as series of functions. Write papers using html or a more complex method, and embed the math as a series of nested functions. Never reuse symbols - use complete words. Never bother with showing algabraic simplification, just encode a command to an automated algebraic simplification tool, the source of which is embedded as well. Oh, and don't perform integration if the answer is not universally applicable in your field.

If we did all this, it would cut by a factor 10 the amount of education needed to read and use and manipulate math, and it would expose a lot of poorly encoded functions accepted by mainstream science (like the fluid dynamics laws which have discontinuities in them), and it would let people who have studied a different field of math actually be able to transition to another field without another 5 years of education.

The symbols are there for readability, not for being complicated. Sure, one could (and as soon as technology exists should) create hyperlinked texts that allow this all the way down. But you are underestimating the amount of work this would take with the currently existing technology. Maybe ten more years or so before this becomes somewhat practicable, and then another ten or more until all the already existing things are encoded that way. That is probably optimistic now.

And a huge amount of mathematics is not just a bunch of rules and then doing simplifications usingformulas. If math were that straightforward we would have automatic theorem proofers since the 80s.

Heck, we are not even close to something that can automatically compare formulas. We might never be: it is an open problem if there exists an algorithm that decides if two functions only using rationals, +, -, ·, /, exp, i, log are actually the same function; even worse, if you add in the absolute value, then it is already known to be algorithmically impossible! (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson's_theorem)

And even if we would have such an algorithm, it would still be a very long way to arbitrary theorems.

I also doubt that the time needed for transitioning into another field is cut shorter in a measurable way. The time goes mostly into learning and understanding the _concepts_, not the formulas. If you were to know every single theorem's statements in all of mathematics, but nothing else, every working mathematician would outclass you in solving a given problem of his field, despite he is probably not even knowing all the theorems from his own field of expertise.

That's also why such simplifications would not work for school: teaching math in the end has to be about those concepts. If we would only require better calculators there would be no need for any mathematics at school at all.

[Albert VDS]

So here are a idea people have about "what happened before the big bang" or "how can you create something from nothing":

- There was nothing at the beginning of the universe not even nothing. It's like the time before you were born, you don't know anything about that.

- In string theory our universe is born from an other universe or the multiverse.

- Our 3 dimensional universe is born from a 4 dimensional star going supernova creating a 4 dimensional black hole. Our 3 dimensional universe exists on it's even horizon.

[WinkAllKerb'']

*2nd + 3th + 4th +ndegree crappy pun mode on*

god farted then the universe began such a smelly fart that everyone all around enjoy it's smell daily till now

*2nd + 3th + 4th +ndegree crappy pun mode off*

i might get a ban for this one but nevermind, no crappy pun no none glory at all and someone has to make it so xD

Edited November 6, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''
this is not related to religion it may appear but believe me no it's not ; )

[NFUN]

*2nd + 3th + 4th +ndegree crappy pun mode on*

god farted then the universe began such a smelly fart that everyone all around enjoy it's smell daily till now

*2nd + 3th + 4th +ndegree crappy pun mode off*

i might get a ban for this one but nevermind' date=' no crappy pun no none glory at all and someone has to make it so xD[/size']

I don't think that's a pun, but then again I have no idea what it's supposed to be, so I guess it's a pun if you say so?

[SomeGuy12]

- In string theory our universe is born from an other universe or the multiverse.

- Our 3 dimensional universe is born from a 4 dimensional star going supernova creating a 4 dimensional black hole. Our 3 dimensional universe exists on it's even horizon.

These just push the problem out. How did those universes get created.

[Jovus]

Also, string theory has no basis in reality. (That is, it has not predicted any observable results.)

[K^2]

Also, string theory has no basis in reality. (That is, it has not predicted any observable results.)

It's more precise to say that it's a mathematical construct with some useful dualities to the observable reality. But it absolutely should not be taken at face value, yes. It is not a scientific theory in the way that components of Standard Model are.

Everything I've mentioned about Big Bang in this thread is based on Standard Model, however.

[Yourself]

Sure. Encapsulate math as series of functions. Write papers using html or a more complex method, and embed the math as a series of nested functions. Never reuse symbols - use complete words. Never bother with showing algabraic simplification, just encode a command to an automated algebraic simplification tool, the source of which is embedded as well. Oh, and don't perform integration if the answer is not universally applicable in your field.

If we did all this, it would cut by a factor 10 the amount of education needed to read and use and manipulate math, and it would expose a lot of poorly encoded functions accepted by mainstream science (like the fluid dynamics laws which have discontinuities in them), and it would let people who have studied a different field of math actually be able to transition to another field without another 5 years of education.