But isn't it conceivable -- i.e., before the Big Bang -- that all that existed was energy, before it was converted to matter? Or else how do you explain where all this "latent energy" came from?Dancing David said:
Or, how about this? ... Is it possible that energy is the medium and hence "barrier" that exists between the material and immaterial? ... Thus allowing the spiritual to become the cause of which the material is the effect?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
"before" the Big Bang
Just a quick aside.
Several months ago, we had a thread that discussed what happened "before" the Big Bang. I can't find it, or I'd post a link. I'll summerize briefly.
There are a number of consequences that come from the Theory of Relativity, only the most famous of them is that matter and energy are the same thing. Another, only slightly less famous, consequence is that space and time are also the same thing. In other words, we live in a truly homogenous 4 dimensional hyperspace as opposed to a 3 dimensional space with a universal time dimension tacked on. In simple English, that means what we consider to be the "future" here could be "left" somewhere else. Those directions are determined locally, not globally.
An even less known consequence of Relativity is that spacetime is defined by matter/energy. Where there is no matter/energy, there is no spacetime. So, at a point where there was "nothing" (meaning no matter/energy) there was no spacetime. So in an absolute lack of matter/energy and spacetime, individual quantum fluctuations (the spontaneous generation of a particle/anti-partical pair that quickly annihilates one another) generate a brief "period" of local spacetime which disappears with the fluctuation. The current theory is that the "Big Bang" is a quantum fluctuation that, for some reason, did not end in mutual destruction (or, at least, not yet).
But anyway, back to the point of my post. It is impossible to talk about what happened "before" the Big Bang because there was no time "before" the Big Bang. No matter/energy means no spacetime. No time means no "before". It's a difficult concept to grasp, but no one ever said the universe was a simple place.
Just a quick aside.
Several months ago, we had a thread that discussed what happened "before" the Big Bang. I can't find it, or I'd post a link. I'll summerize briefly.
There are a number of consequences that come from the Theory of Relativity, only the most famous of them is that matter and energy are the same thing. Another, only slightly less famous, consequence is that space and time are also the same thing. In other words, we live in a truly homogenous 4 dimensional hyperspace as opposed to a 3 dimensional space with a universal time dimension tacked on. In simple English, that means what we consider to be the "future" here could be "left" somewhere else. Those directions are determined locally, not globally.
An even less known consequence of Relativity is that spacetime is defined by matter/energy. Where there is no matter/energy, there is no spacetime. So, at a point where there was "nothing" (meaning no matter/energy) there was no spacetime. So in an absolute lack of matter/energy and spacetime, individual quantum fluctuations (the spontaneous generation of a particle/anti-partical pair that quickly annihilates one another) generate a brief "period" of local spacetime which disappears with the fluctuation. The current theory is that the "Big Bang" is a quantum fluctuation that, for some reason, did not end in mutual destruction (or, at least, not yet).
But anyway, back to the point of my post. It is impossible to talk about what happened "before" the Big Bang because there was no time "before" the Big Bang. No matter/energy means no spacetime. No time means no "before". It's a difficult concept to grasp, but no one ever said the universe was a simple place.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Ever trip over air?Iacchus said:Ever trip over a radio wave?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Re: Re: "before" the Big Bang
Why does there have to be something that came "before"? Actually the question is nonsencical, because "before" implies the existence of time before there was time. It's not logical.Iacchus said:
So, our existence is totally inconceivable then? Is that what you're trying to tell me?Upchurch said:
And what about the notion of time? Just because there was nothing "relative" to measure it against, doesn't mean it didn't exist did it?
Ever see the movie, The Truman Show?
Re: "before" the Big Bang
Yeah, this is a bit confusing...don't leave out the idea that there could have been an infinite number of universes "before" the one we live in. The poiint is not exactly that an "absolute nothing" existed(according to my understanding), but that there was no "before" in a practical sense. There is no practical way of speaking coherently of "before the universe", because time as we know it started along with this universe, and we can't look back any farther than that.
Upchurch said:
Yeah, this is a bit confusing...don't leave out the idea that there could have been an infinite number of universes "before" the one we live in. The poiint is not exactly that an "absolute nothing" existed(according to my understanding), but that there was no "before" in a practical sense. There is no practical way of speaking coherently of "before the universe", because time as we know it started along with this universe, and we can't look back any farther than that.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
Define synchronicity. I double dog dare you.
~~ Paul
First of all let me ask you if you believe in coincidences? If you don't, then there you have it right there. If you require a further definintion, I would say the material world is coordinated by the immaterial. If that doesn't help then look it up in the dictionary.Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
You can also look up the works of Carl Jung if you're the least bit sincere about it.
Wow, can the nonsense get any thicker?Iacchus said:First of all let me ask you if you believe in coincidences? If you don't, then there you have it right there. If you require a further definintion, I would say the material world is coordinated by the immaterial. If that doesn't help then look it up in the dictionary.
You can also look up the works of Carl Jung if you're the least bit sincere about it.
RussDill
Philosopher
Iacchus said:Ever trip over a radio wave?
Funny you should say that. A radio wave is an electromagnetic wave. Not only do EM waves have momentum and can push things, but they are also the mediator of the electrical and magnetic forces. When you touch things, or trip someone, you aren't actually touching them. you are just getting so close, that the rapid exchange of photons (EM waves) between the two objects do not allow you to get any closer.
So yes, in a way, I have been tripped by a radio wave.
DarkMagician
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
- Messages
- 1,532
Nothing relative? Huh? If there are no apples, then there are no apples. There are not "apples relative to something".Iacchus said:
No, but what does that have to do with anything.
Your posts have constituted jargon, circular arguments, meta-arguements, and engrish.
RussDill
Philosopher
Iacchus said:
Immaterial suggests a dualism, with matter and energy, there is no dualism, matter is energy. Also, it took a while after the big bang for matter to be able to hold together and apear at all, and even longer for matter as we know it (stable hydrogen)
I can show you evidence if you like. The models we use to describe particles (such as quantum theories) can be used to "run the tape backwards"" to attempt to determine what happened further and further back in time. It quickly becomes aparent that the time and space dimensions become less and less dissimilar, and before, becomes more like "over there" until it doesn't really make sense to ask about "now and then". Similar to if the universe is very small, it doesn't do you much good to move anywhere, because you end up where you started really quick. I can show you the equations if you like. I say this not because it is what I want to believe, or I like it, or whatever, but because it is what makes the most sense out of what we know.
Your god however, and your visions, you cannot show me any evidence for.
RussDill
Philosopher
Iacchus said:
But in a universe with relativity, although it might appear that we are all simultaneously retarded, to another observer, it would appear that we are retarded at different times, and to someone falling into a black hole, that we are retarded all the time.