Interesting isn't it...🙂
If that was true it would mean that there had always been something and possibly a before the universe..if that's infinity its a long time..and the question how many lives have lived in the past...assuming the future doesn't already exist.
How long is infinity..does it stop at the "Now" But that's a philosophical idea..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Let's not suppose that. Theory (which first predicted the existence of antimatter) and experiment are quite clear that matter and antimatter are opposites.kenpeter said:
We can each live in our own private mental universe and suppose anything we choose. Or we can live in the real universe and be constrained by inconvenient facts like experimental results and mathematical consistency.
An excellent analogy!Nelson Pass said:
They would have to have somewhere to exist..
What it does do is ask the question is there more than this..However its interesting to hear ideas. 😀
The problem with the physics side is what does infinity mean in the real universe..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
No. It could simply be expanding. Do some reading on non-Euclidean geometry.Kastor L said:
Photons are their own antiparticle, so anti-matter emits photons. Do some reading on particle physics.
OK, provided you don't just mean electric charge. Some electrically neutral particles have an anti-particle, because they carry other charges. In some cases (e.g. the neutral kaon) this gets interesting as the charge eigenstates are not the same as the mass eigenstates. (IIRC!)volume knob said:
I am so tempted to respond, but so constrained by forum rules!!M Gregg said:
Time came into existence with the universe. Therefore 'before' that is as meaningless in time terms as North of North. However, it is conceivable that outside of time (and space) there is eternity; just as outside of North there is something which is not North of North.Kastor L said:
Agreed. This is a good analogy, but it too is expressed in ordinary language. It is of course a negative, limiting or cautionary analogy, but it can still be very helpful in trying to clarify our thinking nonetheless (warning us not to settle on too easy a conception and to keep in mind the limits of extending certain kinds of ordinary, common sense conceptions too far, as SY and others have rightly pointed out).
Eternity is a factor of time, I don't know why you would separate them, let alone HOW, but you putting "and space" in parenthesis gives me a clue, you think time is mathematically linked to space, i.e. "space-time" and all data suggests space came into existence 13.7 billion years ago, thus so did time? Is this correct in your eyes or is there more to it?
This idea has a long history within the western philosophical (and particularly the theological) tradition. You find this question being discussed, for example, in the writings of St. Augustine who proposes that time is a creation but that's it's actual creation should not be read or construed as a temporal event but is more like a relation of the world's dependence on some prior, non-temporal ground (which he refers to as God).
For those who are interested in this kind of question I highly recommend that you read "Book Eleven" of Augustine's Confessions where he begins to reflect on the nature of time. Don't be put off by the theological nature of the work, for it is still an honest and interesting philosophical reflection on the nature of time. What is interesting about Augustine's account (and which mirrors the discussion here) is that while his conception of creation has its roots in the book of Genesis, he warns against taking the account provided there too literally and outlines some of the problems that arise when we think about the creation of time in ordinary, common sense terms. It's here that we find one of Augustine's most famous lines:
"What, then, is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks me, I do not know. Yet I say with confidence that I know that if nothing passed away, there would be no past time; and if nothing were still coming, there would be no future time; and if there were nothing at all, there would be no present time." (St. Augustine Confessions - Book Eleven)
There has been a lot of very good and interesting work done on the nature of time, but Augustine's is a good place to start.
A non-euclidian shape can expand yes, I'm not sure what you're insinuating there.
The number of stars we have is most likely finite, Wikipedia says 10^22 - 10^24. The stars are expanding.
The space the stars are inside is......
- either finite or infininte
- either isotropic or anisotropic
If you can shed some light on the above two dashed points it would be appreciated.
Edit: I assume (until corrected) you think the universe is isotropic and finite in total mass.
Last edited:
Its an interesting question,
Was time "happening" for the big bang to occur or did time not exist until the big bang..
If time didn't exist then something outside of time made it occur..
This would infer that something can exist outside of time.
If this is not the case then time must run before the big bang..but it still asks the question where did the big bang happen and what is the universe expanding into..is this size related 3D or something else?
Regards
M. Gregg
Was time "happening" for the big bang to occur or did time not exist until the big bang..
If time didn't exist then something outside of time made it occur..
This would infer that something can exist outside of time.
If this is not the case then time must run before the big bang..but it still asks the question where did the big bang happen and what is the universe expanding into..is this size related 3D or something else?
Regards
M. Gregg
I personally consider it irresponsible in the extreme to let our teenagers run around in our current sexually red-hot society (which WE created!) without access to birth control means, but that's probably getting to close to politics for some.
Jan
I don't agree to the statement that Hubble was able to see to the end of the universe. Only the statement that he was able to see until the boundaries of our space-time-horizon is correct. And it's true that beyond that boundary nothing is to be seen.... simple, the light emitted from those regions was not able to reach us.
Our time-horizon enables us to observe a somewhat spherical part of space-time. THAT is the limitation we have to deal with.
Absolutely right, Jan....
But I guess that's because we both live in Holland, were these matters are approached in a more business-like ethical way (no other words to describe). But even a discussion about the ethics (bio-ethics, in which I took a couple of classes recently) is bound to be too political in one way or too religious in the other way... So, I guess this subject is better left to rest on this forum.
I almost hate to say this, but the questions being raised here require that we try to clarify what is meant by both 'time' and 'existence.' Is time a kind of simple, serial relation (e.g. dated time--July 1, July 2, and so on where the relations are fixed), or is time the kind of relational or tensed time that is so much a character of lived experience (e.g. a sense of the present or 'now' as a kind of floating signifier that involves a relation to a past and a future but whose relation to the past and the future is constantly changing, e.g. what is present or now will become past and what is future will become present or now).If total complete nihilistic nothingness 'existed' prior to the big bang (i.e., not even time existed), then it couldn't have happened.
You need time for an event to happen. Without time, nothing can ever happen, nothing at all.
Thus the fact time exists, is evidence it has always existed, at least in some form - any form at all - except zero time.
It's not a null hypothesis like SACD in audio waiting for evidence so to speak, it's self-contained evidence. "I exist now, therefore I am eternal".
Also, what does it mean to exist? If existence only refers to that is present here and now, for example, then the past and future (as past and future per se) don't exist. If so, then how do we make sense of past and future? Are they real, for example, or merely subjective projections onto existence. If the former, then reality would seem to extend beyond mere existence here and now, while if the latter then how and why could such a subjective projection have come to exist in the first place?
While we use terms like time, existence, space, and so on all the time, it could (and has been) argued that most of us most of the time don't have a clear and distinct conception of such notions. As Leibniz might put it, our ordinary understanding of most things is typically clear but confused. Put crudely, we know how to use the terms in everyday discourse, but we lack a clear, detailed conception of what such terms might mean (e.g. what it is they might refer to insofar as they 'refer' at all).
I want to suggest that discussions like this can help move us toward developing a clearer conception and understanding of such problematic notions as space, time, existence and so on, and even if the conceptions proposed and developed remain less clear and exact than they could be (or might actually be for someone who has already done the difficult work of thinking them through, e.g done the mathematics), it is nevertheless a step in that direction and I take this to be a good thing. 😉
Phil
You're heading toward theology, which DF96 (rightly) is diffident about discussing.
Although our theological views are quite different, I think we pretty much agree on what physics tells us about the physical Universe and the nature of time and space. Theology deals with matters that lay outside of time and space, but that's not the topic...
Time is one picosecond moving to the next picosecond, or it's one aeon moving to the next aeon.
The human feeling of now-ness, five-second-ago-ness and so on are I'm guessing innate feelings with tiny neural networks dedicated to them, so we can be very fast and efficient and have a linear sense of reality.
Perhaps some monks rather have a non-linear sense of reality and feel the aeons or whatever but even then time itself is always constant, crystallized and completely indifferent.
The past exists, you can film it and watch it.
Existence is partly a subjective feeling, we don't exist very much while we're sleeping, for example.
Existence is likewise crystallized and indifferent to what humans think of it.
What is North of the North Pole? The South pole.
We must remember that light is a physical particle that can have it's path manipulated.
I can easily walk straight lines up and down a train car, yet have my direction changed by the direction of the tracks.
E=mc² is similar to ohms law in the sense that there are more then one factor involved, speed and mass.
This is why Hubble's observations need to be revisited.
The faster you go, the heavier you get, the more "time" slows down.
Therefore light can be interpreted as being extremely heavy and slow.
If you could sit on a photon, what do you think the universe would look like now?
This is why time is a variable answer depending on the speed and masses of the two locations being compared.
This is why Hubble's work is misinterpreted, he simply observed the redshift of light traveling from those particular objects of size and weight to the Earth.
Even on Earth the perception of "time" to Hubble would have been different to Hubble if he were himself heavier.
Slight and inconceivable, yes, but there nonetheless.
So this is why Hubble's radar-gun measurement of the universe is incomplete if you want to satisfy "where" the universe is going, more accurately, what location it is in, in it's circuit.
Take a look at the interaction of electrons that occurs in an amplifier.
Time (current (I)) can be different at different locations, depending on what obstacles the electrons encounter on their way back to "ground".
Some of them can be temporarily stored, by changing the physical state of the electron through chemical reaction, while other electrons pass by.
By definition, a time machine.
This leads to a subsequent point, all of those electrons you guys have been putting to "ground", where do you think they are going?
How many pounds a year to you think the earth puts on from consuming all these additional electrons?
I dread the though of having to switch to low-calorie electrons.
299 792 458 meters per second is not the speed of light.
The speed of light is the speed of light.
299 792 458 mps compensates for our localized mass and speed.
If you were twice as big, on a planet twice the size E=mc² would still work but "299 792 458" meters per second would not be the speed of light in that situation.
We must remember that light is a physical particle that can have it's path manipulated.
I can easily walk straight lines up and down a train car, yet have my direction changed by the direction of the tracks.
E=mc² is similar to ohms law in the sense that there are more then one factor involved, speed and mass.
This is why Hubble's observations need to be revisited.
The faster you go, the heavier you get, the more "time" slows down.
Therefore light can be interpreted as being extremely heavy and slow.
If you could sit on a photon, what do you think the universe would look like now?
This is why time is a variable answer depending on the speed and masses of the two locations being compared.
This is why Hubble's work is misinterpreted, he simply observed the redshift of light traveling from those particular objects of size and weight to the Earth.
Even on Earth the perception of "time" to Hubble would have been different to Hubble if he were himself heavier.
Slight and inconceivable, yes, but there nonetheless.
So this is why Hubble's radar-gun measurement of the universe is incomplete if you want to satisfy "where" the universe is going, more accurately, what location it is in, in it's circuit.
Take a look at the interaction of electrons that occurs in an amplifier.
Time (current (I)) can be different at different locations, depending on what obstacles the electrons encounter on their way back to "ground".
Some of them can be temporarily stored, by changing the physical state of the electron through chemical reaction, while other electrons pass by.
By definition, a time machine.
This leads to a subsequent point, all of those electrons you guys have been putting to "ground", where do you think they are going?
How many pounds a year to you think the earth puts on from consuming all these additional electrons?
I dread the though of having to switch to low-calorie electrons.
299 792 458 meters per second is not the speed of light.
The speed of light is the speed of light.
299 792 458 mps compensates for our localized mass and speed.
If you were twice as big, on a planet twice the size E=mc² would still work but "299 792 458" meters per second would not be the speed of light in that situation.
Last edited:
Alright then.
Personally I believe time is very likely eternal and energy is apparently forever constant, at least that's what this law informed me law of conservation of energy - Wiktionary.
That's just me.
I can see how discussing these two particulars are heading towards theology and such.
I'll be quiet now and let the thread continue with mathematics and statistics hehe.
No. Ohm's Law is an approximation suitable for certain systems and not others (try applying it to a PN junction!). It has three independent variables. Einstein's equation is universal and only has two variables- c is a constant, and that's a fundamental which has such overwhelming experimental support as to render objection crankery.
Perfect example of a sentence that is grammatically correct and physically meaningless.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.