- #1
Ryuk1990
- 158
- 0
Now, assuming the big bang theory is true, how can we explain how that first tiny particle got there? If that small particle of energy did form from nothing, what are some of the scientific laws that this would go against?
Ryuk1990 said:Now, assuming the big bang theory is true, how can we explain how that first tiny particle got there? If that small particle of energy did form from nothing, what are some of the scientific laws that this would go against?
friend said:At this small of a scale I think it must be the case that the single particle was equivalent to all of spacetime itself; the properties of spacetime at that time was equivalent to the properties of the single particle at that time. This is a hint that in general spacetime gives rise to particles. virtual particles no doubt. I suspect that there must be a way to equate particle characteristics to spacetime characteristics; one must be an alternative view of the other.
It is completely logical to have a true conclusion from a false premise, at least this is what we are told from the truth table for the logical connective of material implication, you know, the IF, THEN statements. And to start any description of something you must start with a coordinate system. So it seems we must start with the ability to describe material implication with coordinates before we can proceed to particles properties.
how can we explain how that first tiny particle got there
Naty1 said:Well nobody really knows.
At Planck scale and smaller supposedly everything is violent and energetic.."quantum foam" like a roiling malestrom...the smaller the distance/volume the more wild quantum undulations become exhuibiting increasing instantaneous bursts of Planck Energy. "Everything that is not prohibited is mandatory" suggests all sorts of things will pop from such instability...even multiverses...there are an infinite number of undulations going on all the time so expect everything imaginable to occur.
Pattonias said:Isn't that a really drawn out way of saying that we are guessing?
Of course, the same thing can be said about some accounts of ghosts and unicorns...twofish-quant said:This is a great quote from "Plan 9 from Outer Space"
Criswell: My friend, you have seen this incident based on sworn testimony. Can you prove that it didn't happen?
Back to the ol' balloon analogy.Pattonias said:There has to be a central point if there is supposed to be a single point or origin for big bang to occur from.
My reference is to the "big bang origin" being 0,0,0.
DaveC426913 said:Back to the ol' balloon analogy.
The universe is a three-dimensional volumetric thing, but for clarity, let's drop a dimension and consider a universe that is only two-dimensional. It is in the shape of a deflated latex balloon, and starts at zero size.
The balloon now inflates to two feet in diameter. Where on the surface of the balloon is the irigin: 0,0? There is no unique point on the surface. All points on the surface of the balloon started off at coordinate 0,0.
And the difference is?Pattonias said:I wasn't really trying to make an argument based on the grid coor. as defined by the universe, but one defined on space.
DaveC426913 said:And the difference is?
Pattonias said:I think we are arguing about two different things. I guess my grid would exist withen "space". Defining space as the place where the Universe exists (or doesn't).
S.Vasojevic said:There is no "outside" of the universe, just inside. Balloon analogy is nice, but it has its flaws. One being that it implies some kind of boundary.
Pattonias said:Having that to work with, how about this?
The matter within the universe is expanding and had a starting point. In order make questions easier to word, can it be said that all the matter in the Universe originated in a single set (of) event(s).
Pattonias said:That is a very good question?
What difference does it make. I am making an argument that the Universe is expanding from a common point. You are saying that all points are equal. This is a unrelated argument. If you are saying that within the Universe points don't matter, it doesn't change the fact that there appears to be a common origin. It is more of a philosophical argument that all of the points in the universe are equal. You can establish a grid from any point that you choose within space.
Pattonias said:Having that to work with, how about this?
The matter within the universe is expanding and had a starting point. In order make questions easier to word, can it be said that all the matter in the Universe originated in a single set (of) event(s).
It seems like a pointless argument to speculate whether or not the Universe existed before this event. You pretty much have to assume it existed whether it had matter/energy in it or not.
DaveC426913 said:One of the models of the universe has it wrapping around, so that heading off in one direction will have you eventually arrive back at your starting point. (Again, the balloon analogy works this way.) This is a universe that has a measurable diameter, yet has no boundary and nothing outside it.