Something From Nothing? The Origin And Subsequent Inflation Of The Singularity.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Material space my be finite but the force behind it is not. Matter decays, the force behind it does not. Matter derives from energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The particular form that energy takes may change but the energy itself does not.

If energy is eternal (conservation of energy) then so is the universe because the universe is energy.

It is not that something came from nothing. There are no things.
'This', the real reality, consists of no things.
There is just the present (which is not a thing that can be grasped)........ out of which, in which, all concepts arise and subside.

We as something that has a finite life span, finite world, etc. have a hard time imagining an infinite universe.
Everything right down to it's smallest form cannot be destroyed into something smaller, this is evidence that what we see in the universe has always been, and will always be there.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Material space my be finite but the force behind it is not. Matter decays, the force behind it does not. Matter derives from energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The particular form that energy takes may change but the energy itself does not.

If energy is eternal (conservation of energy) then so is the universe because the universe is energy.

Quantum physicists say that in a quantum vacuum, which is a space containing no energy, quantum particles pop in and out of existence continually which would seem to contradict conservation of energy...unless there is some other dimension that these quantum particles are coming from.

a reply to: spy66

Why cant the singularity come from nothing?

The singularity does not come from nothing - it is nothing.

If there only existed one state before the singularity appeard we would Call that state nothingness. That means nothingness would have to exist.

The appearance is not different from nothingness. That which appears is moving light - there are no things. 'Things' are concepts, words, ideas which try to frame and capture the movement, the flux.

In deep sleep there is nothing and then the light comes on and there is an appearance - out of this a world made of concepts is dreamt.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: spy66

Why cant the singularity come from nothing?

The singularity does not come from nothing - it is nothing.

If there only existed one state before the singularity appeard we would Call that state nothingness. That means nothingness would have to exist.

The appearance is not different from nothingness. That which appears is moving light - there are no things. 'Things' are concepts, words, ideas which try to frame and capture the movement, the flux.

In deep sleep there is nothing and then the light comes on and there is an appearance - out of this a world made of concepts is dreamt.

Hard to argue against that because it is true.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: spy66

Why cant the singularity come from nothing?

The singularity does not come from nothing - it is nothing.

If there only existed one state before the singularity appeard we would Call that state nothingness. That means nothingness would have to exist.

The appearance is not different from nothingness. That which appears is moving light - there are no things. 'Things' are concepts, words, ideas which try to frame and capture the movement, the flux.

In deep sleep there is nothing and then the light comes on and there is an appearance - out of this a world made of concepts is dreamt.

;Why didn't the singularity remain in that state forever? What acted upon it to cause it to begin to expand/ inflate if there was nothing else?

If you could look at a piece of matter that is decaying you would see atoms with spin rates that have to get their energy from somewhere to cause the spin . This is said to come from the zero point field which has enough energy in 1 sq.inch to power the US for a year .All energy has a source and is used in different ways .A particle or half a particle has the ability to loose location and go somewhere and do something .We know so little and spend lots to try and know things we may never end up knowing . a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

a reply to: SystemResistor

This assumption is based on the premise that the universe is the entirety of all existence. If we were to prove other existences outside of the universe, then we can postulate that another reality gave birth to this one.

Link below to an interesting vid entitled "Is there an edge to the Universe"
It puts forward the idea of other Universes along side our own
Nothing new with this idea but it does offer up scientific explanations of how it may be possible to prove this.
The vid is less than 45 minutes narrated by Morgan Freeman

www.youtube.com...

My thoughts are that space itself is a vital part / substance of the Universe.
Pathways or a medium are necessary for the stars/galaxies to move in ...
Space does have an end/edge but what lays between the space of our Universe and possibly others Universes that could be very different to our own

It is my belief that our own Universe is expanding and consciously creating pathways between our own and other Universes.

In the same way so called nothing which is really dense matter ie compressed into a small part has expanded and brought into being the potential within it IE what we view as galaxies and stars.

Also we see things in material ways ... and it would beg our disbelief to learn that the Universe we live in is merely the base of things ... IE there are other realms that are made of highly refined matter beyond our Earthly senses
are

a reply to: MissSmartypants

How do particles appearing and disappearing have anything to do with conservation of energy? Honest question. As far as I know those particles don't disappear they just relocate, I could be wirong though.

I think it refers to super position where they have the potential to be every where at ant time .Sounds crazy to me but what do I know . a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

originally posted by: the2ofusr1

The universe is eternal, and we as it's expressions are eternal as well.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1 Then how was it possible for scientist to measure the back ground radiation from their big bang .Take a particle and keep dividing it until it what? ceases to exist ? no until it looses locality .So it has limitations as well as the universe . If you say it goes out and then comes back then you are saying it is not infinite but does have it's limitations .

At the time of the big bang, the universe was much smaller, and the energies of the photons that were first created were in or beyond the gamma ray range. As the universe expands all these photons move further away from the Earth and suffer from red-shift (Doppler shift), so they get stretched out until they appear faintly in the infra-red range of the electromagnetic spectrum. The fact that this background radiation isn't constant is of interest. It's like something like a hypernova exploded and the universe is inside this explosion. But as far as we can tell, there is no center, or at least we can't see it.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: MissSmartypants

How do particles appearing and disappearing have anything to do with conservation of energy? Honest question. As far as I know those particles don't disappear they just relocate, I could be wirong though.

You're right. I'm wrong. Even if the particles were coming from another plane of existence conservation of energy would still apply. My bad. Thanks.

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
Something from nothing? Really? In the middle ages the scientists of the day were avid proponents of "spontaneous generation", the idea that maggots sprung into existence in rotting flesh. And that was a long held assumption. And now in 2015 we have scientists who say the singularity arose out of nothing. And not only that, they also say that even with nothing to act on the singularity, it somehow was moved to change its state and begin to inflate(the big bang). So no need for a cause to lead to the effect, apparently. So did something arise from nothing and eventually lead to us? What say you, ATS?

The obvious conclusion to all that though is nothing from something, it's a scientific Lemming

If one thinks of the universe in general terms it is enormous. 50 billion ly in any direction. That's big indeed. The observable universe is only about 13 billion ly in any direction. Still huge by any stretch. Now consider a UNIVERSE that is as near as possible to the idea of infinity... There are no constrictions on the conservation of energy, as even HUGE localised energy variations, such as that needed to cause the expansion of a local universe, would be easily provided for from the quantum sea. In such an almost infinite realm perhaps universes such as ours are created with constraints on the dimensions they present. They may suffer from some type of quantum overload if there is no such limit, and disappear in a blaze of light. Now it gets anthropomorphic as the reason we exist is the reason we can ask why.

The ONE Singularity is omniscience engaged all of omnipotence at infinite spatial division and subtraction so as to become true to the definition of the Self that is omnipresent. Omniscience to be truly omnipresent MUST also reside inside of absolute non-existence and the Singularity is that effort to "go there".

This Singularity is acted upon whereby It is engaged in infinite velocity AND angular diversity. The "wake" established by this effort establishes the infinite expanse and the spatial dimension of height. The Singularity self-contains the spatial dimension of depth throughout the expanse because of the infinite kinetics of the Singularity.

The expanse is the field whereby the infinite kinetic of the Singularity can have kinetics within, as it is the wake of that Singularity that establishes the expanse. Something that never began, cannot end, but just exists.

The Singularity angular diversity within the expanse produces the spatial dimension of width.

Time is the infinite expanse (the wake) imploding from everywhere, towards everywhere, down and inward, targeting return to the Source which is the Singularity (engaged in the infinite kinetics). Time is space with the characteristic of kinetic. Space is time with the characteristic of static. We exist and observe in a bandpass of the expanse converting back into the Singularity where BOTH space an time co-exist as they transform.

originally posted by: tkwasny
The ONE Singularity is omniscience engaged all of omnipotence at infinite spatial division and subtraction so as to become true to the definition of the Self that is omnipresent. Omniscience to be truly omnipresent MUST also reside inside of absolute non-existence and the Singularity is that effort to "go there".

This Singularity is acted upon whereby It is engaged in infinite velocity AND angular diversity. The "wake" established by this effort establishes the infinite expanse and the spatial dimension of height. The Singularity self-contains the spatial dimension of depth throughout the expanse because of the infinite kinetics of the Singularity.

The expanse is the field whereby the infinite kinetic of the Singularity can have kinetics within, as it is the wake of that Singularity that establishes the expanse. Something that never began, cannot end, but just exists.

The Singularity angular diversity within the expanse produces the spatial dimension of width.

Time is the infinite expanse (the wake) imploding from everywhere, towards everywhere, down and inward, targeting return to the Source which is the Singularity (engaged in the infinite kinetics). Time is space with the characteristic of kinetic. Space is time with the characteristic of static. We exist and observe in a bandpass of the expanse converting back into the Singularity where BOTH space an time co-exist as they transform.

Well if I remember my Bible correctly it says that God made that which is seen from that which was unseen Heb 11:3. The same as when He called forth light from darkness in the beginning.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1

The idea is that it existed in a different form before the expansion of space. So the beginning of our universe would not really be the beginning of everything.

a reply to: Woodcarver
I have heard it said that the scientist can only account for 4% of the universe and that the other 96% is made up of dark matter ,black holes ,and things we cant prove but know that are there .

This number is generally thrown around as accurate but most folks understand that it is not really accepted as an accurate model. We know that there are variables that we do not understand. Basically the data set, the amount of information we have, is not large enough to get an accurate depiction of how much matter exists. So the formula we would use to come to this conclusion is incomplete.

Imagine only having a small percentage of that 4% of matter in which to draw conclusions on the other 96+% of the universe .

This in not an acurate comparison. There are plenty of things that we do know. Particle physics is well understood. That includes everything on the periodic table plus many theoretical particles which were predicted before we ever simulated them in the many particle accelerators that are currently operational.

That is a very small sample of data .You say everything but we know so little about our own planet in which we find new species on land and have a fraction of knowledge of the deep oceans . Surly we humans cannot give ourselves a passing grade with such small amount of knowledge .

You act like we dont know anything. We know plenty.

Most of the scientific literature holds words like could be , maybe ,suppose and other such none empirical terms .

That is theoretical physics. Basically when you hear words like that, they are predicting what the math says we should/could see.

There is plenty of science that is no longer theoretical.

Yes we do have a lot to learn but 10 years is too short a time frame to even consider scratching the surface of what may be . ETA ..something that science should really take serious and then work on one theory at a time instead of several at once .Surely they can use math to reduce it down to the most probable .

It makes no sense to work on only one at a time. There are different teams that have separate paths of experimentation. It is important to come at these problems from different angles. Then these teams come together and discuss their findings. That is good science.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
In my opinion our big bang is only one along a infinite number of them. Energy cannot be created or destroyed and all matter derives from energy. The universe is eternal, and we as it's expressions are eternal as well.

Big bang, big crunch, big bang, big crunch, ad infinitum. Everything works in cycles, why would the universe be any different? This is only one cycle among eternity.

Well we do know that there is not enough matter in our universe to cause the crunch part of your hypothesis. There would have to be way way more matter to cause the return to the center. Our universe will simply continue expanding until it is cold and lifeless.