Religion

[Mykey]

I join. I agree with told all above. Let's discuss this question.

[Diego]

Pie, your skepticism is of little scientifical weight on the matter. The fact is, at subatomic level, certainties are a rarity; everything operates on probability.

[deadboy]

Hang on a second, why should sub-atomic ramdonalities have -anything- to do with a creation. There -is- no atoms, or sub-atomic particles when there is nothing.

That is a misconception. The current model that the Big Bang works around is a primordial point-like quantum field with infinite density and enormous energetic content, not nothingness. Such a field would be within the scope of subatomic interaction laws.

Oh right, in that case what does the big bang theory have to say about how -that- was created? It's not much of a creation if everythings already there, only in it's simplest forms

[Diego]

There is no need for its creation. Causality, as in, "Things need a cause to exist" is violated at that level--time is also contained within this pointlike singularity, so there is no "before", ergo, no creation.

[deadboy]

There is no need for its creation. Causality, as in, "Things need a cause to exist" is violated at that level--time is also contained within this pointlike singularity, so there is no "before", ergo, no creation.

That is the most stupid paradox idea I've ever heard. At that level there is no need for cause sure, but that level doesn't exist, once that level exists things can simply appear and that level can exist, but with absolute nothing there is no "level" for cause to not exist in. And sure I get that time thing but that's just being picky . I cannot see how this works

EDIT: Besides, if this was in fact possible, despite me seeing no way for it to be, this would be happening over and over again, points of infinite energy appearing at random, and so the universe would be a giant exploding mass of different dimensions of time and it would probably not work. Besides, has anyone ever recorded massive levels of energy randomly appearing?

EDIT2: Oh yeah, like my new signature? It's the first time I've changed it . Guess the comic

[Diego]

That is the most stupid paradox idea I've ever heard. At that level there is no need for cause sure, but that level doesn't exist, once that level exists things can simply appear and that level can exist, but with absolute nothing there is no "level" for cause to not exist in. And sure I get that time thing but that's just being picky . I cannot see how this works

EDIT: Besides, if this was in fact possible, despite me seeing no way for it to be, this would be happening over and over again, points of infinite energy appearing at random, and so the universe would be a giant exploding mass of different dimensions of time and it would probably not work. Besides, has anyone ever recorded massive levels of energy randomly appearing?

EDIT2: Oh yeah, like my new signature? It's the first time I've changed it . Guess the comic

There are no naked singularities within the Universe, and, theoretically, none can exist, though that is debatable. The characteristics that have to be fulfilled for a Big Bang scenario to exist imply a point of quantum-mechanics-like proportion of infinite density, wherein all dimensions are warped infinitely around the same point. This is what we call a singularity--basically, a fragmented, sawed-off portion of the Universe.

Now, a singularity's mass is not infinite. We know it has mass, because it requires mass in order for its gravity to cause it to collapse upon itself and keep itself together in this pointlike form, but it is certainly not infinite. Its density is infinite because, as you may know, the formula for density is mass divided by volume, and its volume is basically lim 0.

What does this mean? Well, this means that we have a particle of mass equal to the current mass of the Universe compressed in a pointlike quantum field, called a singularity. Being a quantum field, fluctuations are bound to occur. As matter and energy pops in and out of existance, at some (non-temporal) point, the field was insufficient for containing the amount of matter within it, ergo, it popped in a random fluctuation, giving a very volatile birth to the Universe, dimensions, time, causality, and all such rules that we know of.

Now, where did this singularity come from? Well, a theoretical primordial singularity does not need a cause, as there is no before it, it contains time and it is the preceding element to causality (and anything else). It may be hard to imagine, but such abstract concepts usually are, and no one said theoretical astrophysics are supposed to be easily pictured concepts connected in clearly tangible ways.

[deadboy]

No, you've answered my question pretty well and I've come up with this conclusion. Right now science has is pretty much the same explaination as religion. Something existed before, well fine, at the same time as creation that made it happen. -Both- of them say it just existed though.

I still haven't found a plausible, for me, explaination of how everything came into existance

[Floris]

No, they are not easy.

But I still think there is something missing in it. As I get it, the laws of physics that our planet has(gravitational acceleration of +/- 10 m/s; zero-point in temperature of 0K) are all unique for our universe.

So, logically, another universe created would have different laws of physics.
But the laws of the quantum-mechanics, do not change. Is that right? As quantum-mechanics gives an explanation of how the big-bang happened, it also explains all other big-bangs. Thus, if I accept this theory, I accept the possibility of an infinite number of universes existing.

Now, dimensions. I would take it that the 'number' of dimensions would also depend on the specific uniqueness of the universe. As I take it, our universe has four dimensions(the three we can grip, + time). Diego, what can you tell me on this? What have dimensions to do with the singularity, the bigbang and the universe that is created.

For, if your singularity has a volume, even infinitely close to 0, it therefore already has three dimensions. If it has time warped in it, there is no fourth dimension then. Thus the 'lifespan' of such a singularity is 0, is infinite and is -infinite. Also, if the Universe were to be Big Chunked, I expect the result of the Chunk to be a singularity. The same singularity, or different? Or is the Universe as it has been for 15 billion years, just one of the things happening to the singularity, with whole loads of other things that happened in it as well. Other universes, some more, some less succesful perhaps. And while this universe exists, does that singularity exist as well at the same time, or can they not exist together. (The singularity having no time and no causality, I would say that if it exists, it exists always and into infinity, and thus it ought to exist while we exist).

So, tell me, how many things did I get wrong here?

[Diego]

No, they are not easy.

But I still think there is something missing in it. As I get it, the laws of physics that our planet has(gravitational acceleration of +/- 10 m/s; zero-point in temperature of 0K) are all unique for our universe.

More or less. Slightly modified physics apply to objects of varying scale. Newtonian Physics explain Jim's airplane ride across the globe, but break down around a black hole, for example.

So, logically, another universe created would have different laws of physics.

Not necessarily. We can not assert or deny that statement, as another universe created is by definition impossible to come into contact with, measure or in any way gauge, thus making it impossible to discover any properties it may or may not have. Its existance would be forever impossible to determine, in fact.

But the laws of the quantum-mechanics, do not change. Is that right?

We do not know. We know that there are things we call quantum fields, which behave in a certain way. We also know that, should quantum mechanics essentially precede the Universe, the Big Bang would have happened under the rule of quantum mechanics. Additionally, predictions that applying quantum mechanics to the Big Bang model throws out have been mathematically and experimentally concordant. Ergo, we assume this to be true, until disproved, or a better explanation comes up.

As quantum-mechanics gives an explanation of how the big-bang happened, it also explains all other big-bangs. Thus, if I accept this theory, I accept the possibility of an infinite number of universes existing.

That depends on your definition of "universe." We do not know enough to determine whether or not multiple Big Bangs are possible. However, that means that we can not state that they are impossible, thus, at present time, yes, there is some possibility of more than one Big Bang.

Now, dimensions. I would take it that the 'number' of dimensions would also depend on the specific uniqueness of the universe. As I take it, our universe has four dimensions(the three we can grip, + time). Diego, what can you tell me on this? What have dimensions to do with the singularity, the bigbang and the universe that is created.

Again, we have no way of determining such. This would require comparison between our Universe and theoretical other Universes, which is by definition impossible. What I can tell you is that most Great Unified Theories of Physics predict 10, 11 or 26 dimensions, the most tangible of which, on our scale, are the three dimensions and time.

For, if your singularity has a volume, even infinitely close to 0, it therefore already has three dimensions.

This Universe runs on mathematics, Floris. And "lim 0" has a specific meaning in mathematics; numbers do not behave normally when infinitely approaching another quantity without ever reaching it. The essential implication is that a form of infinite is physically achieved--infinite smallness, resulting in a literal, real point--exists with an infinitely small size, so small, in fact, all dimensions overlap and concentrate in a single point.

If it has time warped in it, there is no fourth dimension then. Thus the 'lifespan' of such a singularity is 0, is infinite and is -infinite.

Assuming, as we likely should, that this singularity is the beginning of the Universe, time is in fact a product of the singularity, rather than a characteristic. It does not have a lifespan, as time did not exist. You're thinking of time as much too essential, when it is nothing but another dimension--something that precedes thickness, for example, would simply be 2D, like old-fashioned cartoons. This simply preceded everything while containing it.

Also, if the Universe were to be Big Chunked, I expect the result of the Chunk to be a singularity. The same singularity, or different?

We do not presently consider singularities to have any characteristics other than mass, within our Universe, or possibly none at all, preceding our Universe.

Or is the Universe as it has been for 15 billion years, just one of the things happening to the singularity, with whole loads of other things that happened in it as well.

The Universe is by definition everything that exists. We have traced everything that exists back to a tiny point 13.7 billion years ago. If "something else" happens to it, that is also part of the Universe.

Other universes, some more, some less succesful perhaps. And while this universe exists, does that singularity exist as well at the same time, or can they not exist together. (The singularity having no time and no causality, I would say that if it exists, it exists always and into infinity, and thus it ought to exist while we exist).

The Universe is the singularity, blown up. There is no differentiation. We live on the inside. of it.

So, tell me, how many things did I get wrong here?

Only the common notion of the Universe as a subset of some form of Multiverse structure, which, while somewhat hypothetically possible, is essentially impossible to observe, measure or experience within our Universe, and thus outside any possible scope of science.

[formerly known as hf]

I think deadboy hit on something, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to say this, but there are a number of striking similarities between religious (Christian) universe-creation myths and those of quantum astrophysics.

Both require an understanding of something with no cause - a 'first event' which requires no before, has no before.

Both also ask that we concieve of a realm of some sorts where some quite fundamental laws of our own world are not adhered to.

Where this become mute, however, is that religion is without a large body of both theoretical and observable proof.

[Diego]

Well, it's not exactly a surprising turn of events--simple logic on which both mankind and science operate would seem to point out that in a chain of events indefinitely long, there must be a prime mover, an element that is its own cause, or requires no cause, that sets it all off.

[Mykey]

It is remarkable, rather useful idea

[Floris]

Hmm, Mykey. True, but that is not the essence of religion.

At least not to me, as you can probably see in my posts here, I do not literally believe in Genesis.

Ofcourse I should not, the history of earth has been traced back to 500 million years and I have with my own eyes seen remnants of human civilization older than, if Genesis be literally true, the world would be(which would be somewhere around 6000 years). So, I do not accept that, but that is also not the 'task' of my religion anymore. Explaining how the world was created and such, how nature works, that is all for science. My religion is about living your life with your fellow people in a certain way.


----

Diego, I see that my thinking about multiple universes existing at the same time is a wrong notion. But I don't see any reason why there is only one such singularity. It all having to do with quantum fields and probability, I would expect there to be an infinite number of singularities, and each of them. Difficult to say: with no time, they can not exist 'at the same time', in with no other dimension they can not even be 'infinitely distanced' from each other.

So, somehow, with all dimensions and mass being warped in one point, everything is in it.

If the Big Bang was a result of probability and a singularity just IS, the discussion is somehow changed. The universe being the singularity, and our world being in it, the question is: what was there before the Big Bang, IN the singularity?

[deadboy]

Hmm, Mykey. True, but that is not the essence of religion.

At least not to me, as you can probably see in my posts here, I do not literally believe in Genesis.

Ofcourse I should not, the history of earth has been traced back to 500 million years and I have with my own eyes seen remnants of human civilization older than, if Genesis be literally true, the world would be(which would be somewhere around 6000 years). So, I do not accept that, but that is also not the 'task' of my religion anymore. Explaining how the world was created and such, how nature works, that is all for science. My religion is about living your life with your fellow people in a certain way.


----

Diego, I see that my thinking about multiple universes existing at the same time is a wrong notion. But I don't see any reason why there is only one such singularity. It all having to do with quantum fields and probability, I would expect there to be an infinite number of singularities, and each of them. Difficult to say: with no time, they can not exist 'at the same time', in with no other dimension they can not even be 'infinitely distanced' from each other.

So, somehow, with all dimensions and mass being warped in one point, everything is in it.

If the Big Bang was a result of probability and a singularity just IS, the discussion is somehow changed. The universe being the singularity, and our world being in it, the question is: what was there before the Big Bang, IN the singularity?

Actually some scientists do accept a multi-verse theory. Although yes, we have no way whatsoever to see if this could ever be true so we can never know, but if there was, they would probably exist in other dimensions correct diego? So they would not have to be distanced

Oh and Floris, I'm kind of getting what Diego is trying to say now, so I'm going to try to answer that one with the answer he woud give, if I'm wrong tell me though

Time was in one point, so there was no before the singilarity, time could not "flow" and so everything was stuck at one point in time. The singilarity was, for one moment, a point of infinite density energy, not matter, just energy, but that was only for one point before..... wait a second, just writing this I've realised something. Diego, if time did not exist how could there be quantum fluctuations? If time was in one place and stood still then the singilarity would always be the same, with no sorts of fluctuations wouldn't it? Anway carrying on ...... it began to expand due to quantum fluctuations

[Nalaris]

The difference between science, and religion is one admits faults, and corrects itself over time, the other may do so, only when overwhelmed with eveidence, and will never "admit" to being wrong. Who would you rather trust?

That's quite the assumption. The only time I've seen my religion conflict with the physical certainties of the world around me (including the ones that I only assume are real because I assume the world at large is real along with all the scientists in it who figure these things out using more resources than I could ever hope to accumulate, despite my never having met the aforementioned scientists. If you don't assume something you'll go crazy) is where man has corrupted my religion (and God has always arrived to set the record straight in due time).