0 members (),
274
guests, and
0
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
To repeat what others have said, requires education; LINEAR(Known,Space) to challenge it, requires brains. NON-LINEAR(Unkonwn) -Mary Pettibone Poole
Thats what lies outside Universe.
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
dkv, if you have a point, make it. In your own words, not someone else's. A parrot can repeat what it has heard someone say. We deserve better than just a parroting of someone else's signature lines. Get on topic or face deletion.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Rose ... the last post should be sufficient. Sharpen the blade and let it fall.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 44
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 44 |
Sorry I havent replied... i've been unable to get on my computer...
The confusing thing about the whole "big bang" for me is that something must have happened to make it happen... which makes it seem that there would have been something around before the "big bang." Things don't just happen without some kind of stimuli... and without material to create with...
"The first Human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization." -Sigmund Freud
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 44
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 44 |
So logically one would assume that there would have been SOMETHING around to "Start" it... things don't just appear from nothingness...
"The first Human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization." -Sigmund Freud
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 16
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 16 |
In the quantum mechanical sense, yes things can come into existance out of nothing. They soon however go out of existance. You can see the chaotic undeterministic events when you go into space-time on an incredibly magnified level, e.g. plancks length magnitude. You see that there are rips and chaos even in the apparantly smooth surface of space.
Edge of the universe: the universe can be seen in diffrent ways. You can see it as flat, and no curve. This is infinite and you will never return to a place you just left. There can also be a spherical structure, in which space-time is round and so it is finite, and you will eventually get back to where you started. Etc etc. In basic physics, and as far as humans comprehend, the universe is flat. In the beginning of time, there was no space, so there can be no boundry as space itself was created in the big'un IMO.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Ric wrote: "So logically one would assume that there would have been SOMETHING around to "Start" it... things don't just appear from nothingness..."
Not necessarily. Let me give you an example. There is every reason to believe that our universe is fractal. In other words created by recursion just as miles of beach can be created from individual grains of sand.
Now take a good look at those grains of sand. What's there? Well if you strip the space out between the nucleus and the electrons essentially nothing. Then remove the space between the quarks and you really do have essentially nothing. At least when compared with the volume you thought you understood. And what is left? Mass? That is now believed to just be an interaction between the point-like strings that compose the electrons and quarks and a field known as a Higgs Field. So remove that interaction and you are even closer to nothing.
This is not all that different from looking at what appears to be a chessboard and then discovering it is really just the thin film of a holographic projection. Another version of the appearance of something when in fact there is next to nothing.
So while it is true that there may have been something, in some manner of thinking, that something may have been remarkably close to nothing. Or even, if one considers quantum mechanics, nothing but the inevitability of change.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560 |
no, no, no, 'Nothing' doesn't exist, in how many ways will I have to explain this? Imagine a photon, it is obviously made of matter (particles) which can be divided further into smaller particles for ever. Just because these extremely small (from our perspective) particles can't be seen (or sensed in general) by us, that shouldn't suggest that they do not exist and 'nothingness' is in their place.
PS DA, here?s an interesting idea, this big bang is a grenade exploding in a higher level of fractals.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Rob wrote: "Imagine a photon, it is obviously made of matter (particles) which can be divided further into smaller particles for ever."
There is no basis in science for this statement. A photon is not only NOT obviously made of matter but there is nothing anywhere supporting your infinite divisibility idea. Nothing!
I would suggest you stop trying to use overly conventional analogies to describe what is, without a doubt, not conventional.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4 |
Just found this site and stumbled onto this topic. I think you have all moved on from the shape of the universe but my understanding is you are talking of a 3D shape i.e. sphere. The nature of the universe is at least 4D with time as the 4th dimension, and possibly more yet discovered dimensions. Therefore the shape may not have sides edges or boundaries and I could not describe how it looks.
With regards to what was there before, something which is so small it is considered nothing, as something very large can be described as infinite. By definition the size can never be measured, so in the case of infinitely small, it is described as nothing.
As science progresses the smallest items become finite, that used to be nothing, until the smallest object that started the universe is found it will always be nothing.
As for the religion concept, faith is the belief in the unproven. In the past it encompassed science we have now answered, that which is still undiscovered but requires an answer leads to faith. Be it hypothesis, a greater being, etc.
The question of a greater being, leads to the question where are they? what are they and what existed before them?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 16
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 16 |
shambles: you are talking of a 3D shape i.e. sphere. The nature of the universe is at least 4D with time as the 4th dimension, and possibly more yet discovered dimensions.
Yes there are 4 dimensions as we understand now, although in superstring theory, there are 11 dimensions, existing on a micro scale. Simply I was not refering to the physical shape as we often perceive, but as space-time itself. Space itself doesn't have a boundry.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560 |
The fact that people can accept that there is a LIMIT to how small or large particles can get shocks and bewilders me. Also, the fact that people believe in nothingness and a finite number of particles gives me severe doubts about the human race. Humans seem to have a need to put a limit on everything, possibly because they fear the concepts of both infinity and nothingness because they can't understand them. If you take a second to actually think about particles you will realise, without the need for proof, that no particle can ever be or even come close to being nothingness and thus non-existent.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4 |
Hi Amara,
That was really my point, that the big bang theory is often visualied as an explosion in 3 dimensions i.e. the expanding sphere. But as it is a 'shape' complex beyond 3 dimensions (4 at least) then it is possible that an 'edge' to the universe does not exist
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 16
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 16 |
Rob: The fact that people can accept that there is a LIMIT to how small or large particles can get shocks and bewilders me. Also, the fact that people believe in nothingness and a finite number of particles gives me severe doubts about the human race. Humans seem to have a need to put a limit on everything, possibly because they fear the concepts of both infinity and nothingness because they can't understand them. If you take a second to actually think about particles you will realise, without the need for proof, that no particle can ever be or even come close to being nothingness and thus non-existent.
In superstring theory, the basic concept is that all mass is fundamentally composed of strings, which open or closed oscillate and there unique oscillations and 'spins' determine their properties. So according to this very promising theory, which curiously enough depends on gravity to work at all, there is a fundamental limit on the size of particles. Your view of infinite divisibility has opposition. However, strings themselves are thought to be extremely small, in the leagues of Planck's length.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 44
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 44 |
Thanks for answering my questions everyone
"The first Human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization." -Sigmund Freud
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560 |
Amara, A lecturer at Cambridge said that to me, I explained to him that the strings need to be made of SOMETHING. Look at a rubber band as an example - it is made of atoms. He agreed with me.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Rob wrote: "A lecturer at Cambridge said that to me, I explained to him that the strings need to be made of SOMETHING. Look at a rubber band as an example - it is made of atoms. He agreed with me."
I would disagree.
I think we would say that strings ARE something as a matter of convention. That is not exactly the same thing.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 16
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 16 |
Sorry Rob, but you do not understand the concepts of superstring theory. In string theory, the strings themselves (not like rubber bands) are the most fundamental of "particles". Try researching and reading a few books here and there before you make comments about subjects in which you do not understand.
"A lecturer at Cambridge said that to me" Please...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560 |
Actually, when I spoke to the lecturer, I didn't use the rubber band example, What I really I said to him was; "But then you could divide the strings into smaller strings." Secondly, I must point out that he didn't actually 'agree' with me, he just said "I suppose so."
|
|
|
|
|