Before The Big Bang

reply to post by PurpleChiten


The big question is: How did the physical space go from this physical state.





To this physical state:






If the first physical state is a infinite state. That means that that sate is a constant state. That means it won't change without a reason. It won't change by cause. Because there are nothing physical present in this space to cause a cause.

There are no quantum elements present. Because quantum is a finite state.

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by spy66

What i have underlined in you comment is that you say that we use the infinite within math and physics. Thereby we already know it exists theoretically. So the dimension cannot be ruled out when we talk about the beginning of finite existence. Its just that we first have to agree on where the beginning is. And i guess that would be the absolute emptiness of space.

It's also important for them to realize that the term "space" has many different concepts involved as well. What we theoretically know of as "space" is the area in which the universe exists as opposed to the physical regions between known, measureable matter which is also called "space". Although it would add a great deal of vocabulary in, we should incorporate the differences in the theoretical and physical senses to prevent the errors that are made when generalizing a concept.
The absolute emptiness of space would be in the theoretical construct, not the physical construct as the physical construct would not yet exist in the beginning of things, it is part of what resulted within the theoretical space.
I see that you do have a good handle on the concepts!

I guess we all have different approaches to view space. I do agree that how you describe them are very important if you like others to fallow the concept, so that they can both learn and make a contribution to make the pieces fit.

The absolute emptiness of space would be in the theoretical construct, not the physical construct as the physical construct would not yet exist in the beginning of things, it is part of what resulted within the theoretical space.
I see that you do have a good handle on the concepts!

The problem here is that a absolute empty space is not a "theoretical construct", That to will confuse people.

Before we had the construct of physical space. The space we today call the theoretical space was the only physical space. This space has never disappeared. But we talk about it and treat it as if it dosent exist anymore.

The irony is that we use the infinite in math and physics. But we argue that it hasn't been proven to exist. I see a lot of irony in that with people.


I also agree in the way you described the space between physical knows. Because i think a lot of people don't pay attention to details like that. I did a experiment with some people just to prove just that with this image.
I asked them how many dimension do they see: They all said two. They left out the dimension surrounding the two knows.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

I see what you are saying. I think our theology plays into the idea of existance/nonexistance before the big bang. We have the creation mindset that causes us to think that there was no existance before the intervention of the creator.
I can see how that wouldn't have to be the case and there could have been an existance, just not the existance we are familiar with.
Thank you for pointing that out!

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

The big question is: How did the physical space go from this physical state.


To this physical state:


If the first physical state is a infinite state. That means that that sate is a constant state. That means it won't change without a reason. It won't change by cause. Because there are nothing physical present in this space to cause a cause.

There are no quantum elements present. Because quantum is a finite state.

I only removed the photos to conserve server space for the forum.

Very good question. Based on the premise, there would have to be an insertion of something into the given space whether it be energy, matter or something else we are not aware of that is interconected. That would bring in concepts of various dimensions or realms of which we have no physical access to.
There would either have to have been an insertion or the original state would have been different from what we theorize it to be.
Do we have a way to support our idea that the original state was completely void or is there credance lended to the concept that perhaps it wasn't completely void and is somehow cyclic? I am merely "brainstorming" at the moment as I have not pondered this to any extent.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

Very good question. Based on the premise, there would have to be an insertion of something into the given space whether it be energy, matter or something else we are not aware of that is interconected. That would bring in concepts of various dimensions or realms of which we have no physical access to.
There would either have to have been an insertion or the original state would have been different from what we theorize it to be.
Do we have a way to support our idea that the original state was completely void or is there credance lended to the concept that perhaps it wasn't completely void and is somehow cyclic? I am merely "brainstorming" at the moment as I have not pondered this to any extent.

I have to say its good to experiance a person who knows what i am talking about, maybe i can learn some as i get lost.

To grasp what the physical void of the absolute empty infinite space is. I have to combine a few very known concepts. I will never be sure exactly what the void is, but its easy to tell what it wont be. That is one clue to grasping the infinite dimension. It can not be anything we know of physically.

The infinite void can not be like any physical finite energy or matter that we know of. There is a way to do a check on this theory. And that is by understanding dimension. There is a easy way to explain this, and there is a more detailed way to explain this.

The easy way:

Lets say you have a piece of paper in front of you lying on the table. That paper represents the infinite space. The paper is the first physical space. "The first physical void".
This paper will not change or form anything until you do something to it. That is logic. We can do this experiment at home .)

What ever you draw (it dosent matter what it is) or want to display. It must be on the piece of paper. Because it represents all the void there is.
If you draw something on the piece of paper. You would have to use a pen or a pencil. This actually tells you a lot when it comes to the void. Because the paper is one void and the pen or pencil is of a different void.

This means that the paper must form a totally different dimension than it self. To have a new physical dimension. This means that no physical matter or known energy was present before the Big Bang.


When it comes to wave frequencies. The infinite string would be straight and silent. It wouldn't move.

Hopefully we can continue to learn from each other.
I do have to admit that your English is exceptional concerning it's not your primary language. I applaud you for that.
I like the example of the paper. It's a flat, 2 dimensional surface, but in order for anything to be represented on it, the writing utensil must come into contact with it. We could even look at it deeper and see it as adding a third dimension of sorts, even though the extent of the dimension is very miniscule. The lines that are drawn do have a depth to them on top of the plane of the paper, yet still connected to it (microscopic as that depth may be).
So, without the interaction of the two different "voids", nothing can be created in the void of the paper.
Our visual perception of the paper remains in 2 dimensions, even though we can represent 3 dimensions on it. That implies that we can represent the 4 dimensions in our 3 dimensional space and when we include time as the 4th dimension, we should be able to represent the 5th dimension and so on. ...although we don't presently know what the component of the 5th on up would be, if we knew them, we could incorporate them into the previous model to get to that model.

What are your thoughts on the magnitude of the number of dimensions? Would there be infinitely many or would there be a finite number? I can see how each could be argued but with our present abilities, I'm not certain that we could exclude one of the possiblities.
I see it as the possibility of infinite dimensions does exist, but we are not able, dut to our physical existance in this once-void, to move beyond a finite number of them. Presently, we can conceptualize 4 and extend that thought on to more, but I feel there must be a finite number that is accessible to us in our universe due to the addition from another void (whether that be a creator or some other force) in order to create what we are and know of into this void. Just as the paper was limited to 2 dimensions for the purpose of drawing, we would be limited to some number for the purpose of the forming existance that we are now a part of. ...of course we could also wad that paper up and it is transformed into 3 dimensions, throw it across the room and the time it takes to travel would transform it into 4 dimensions....
Does what we consider to be "life" actually exist due to the interaction of a dimension higher than what we are able to percieve? I am back to brainstorming now...

edit to address your edit.
Very interesting concept with the wave frequency! with each dimension represented by a wave, the lowest having the greatest frequency and changing as the dimensions increase would produce a frequency that was straight and unmoving as the result... very, very interesting!

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

I asked for clarification. You gave it. I understand your meaning as for example, you believe energy cannot be added nor subtracted from the system, but it still can expand infinitely such as the space between the photons, you explained to me about earlier, will keep expanding after all the energy in the Universe has been reduced to spares radiation.

That's essentially right. The energy of expansion is vacuum potential energy, so the total energy content of the universe is conserved. Eventually, it dies out, but, at the moment, a majority of the expansion is possibly driven by the interaction of antimatter in the large-scale voids with regular matter in the filaments. This, too, will eventually die out.

"Die out?" Does that mean there is no more evolution in the transformation of energy from one form to another, meaning, just lone photons as spars radiation suspended in space and time between vast distances as you mentioned?

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

I just can't accept it because the Universe contains a finite amount of energy

Oh so you "just can't accept it"... how brilliant your reasoning, you just ignore all facts and go with what you want to believe. Why don't you try learning some quantum mechanics because this simply isn't up for debate, it's fact. ALL MATTER HAS A WAVE COMPONENT, there are many experiments which have proven this fact, you cannot ever predict the exact position of a particle because it's not really a freaking particle, it's a probabilistic wave form. You can not possibly begin to explain the nature of matter without bringing quantum mechanics into the picture. Your idea of reality is vastly outdated.

I can't get over myself as i'm all "that." That's what you're asking. You are asking me to do away with some of my self confidence.

It's called having a sense of humility, to be humble rather than egotistic, to realize no one knows everything and in fact most of us know a lot less then we think we know.

You should pay attention to quote I provided on the first page of this thread:

"The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing" ~ Socrates

edit on 6-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

And the 'wave components" are separated from the laws and conservation of energy how exactly?

You still are not understanding that the math involved in the "art" of predicting "an" outcome is not the same as theoretical abstract, aka fantasy, possible outcomes, in the plural which is absolutely not correct as everything only has one "possible" outcome... that was "possible" to begin with... Leading all the way back to the singularity of the Big Bang in the domino effect of the Universe. The form of energy that any energy is at any given point in time is like a standing domino ready to be knocked over as it leans into the next domino which is the next form it will be transferred into from photons to electrical human thought. There is no way around this effect not even in the mind of a theoretical physicist's thinking in terms of quantum physics. You can't introduce new energy into the Universe nor destroy existing energy, exiting it somehow, and since all energy is connected by the singularity of the Big bang and everything in this universe is energy, your ideas and in the scientific community do not hold water. Deal with it! Randomness of the Universe is a voodoo mathematical myth developed by establishment witchdoctors. Math they developed so complex and confusing like the Winchester Mansion that it cannot ever be properly vetted by enough peers who could toss it in the trash bin where it belongs. One day it will. Until then it only survives because of its Wizard of OZ curtain of "only a hand full of people on the planet under stand the math involved."

People who get lost in the Winchester Mansion still can understand the layout doesn't make any logical sense.

You allow people to dictate to your mind it does, and you agree in the affirmative based wholly on faith even though the obvious affirms otherwise.

reply to post by spy66


Man I almost forgot about this thread, I've been paying attention to another thread which has taken off.

If the first physical state is a infinite state. That means that that sate is a constant state. That means it won't change without a reason. It won't change by cause. Because there are nothing physical present in this space to cause a cause.

There are no quantum elements present. Because quantum is a finite state.

I don't see why an infinite state needs to be "constant". We are talking about infinite space-time here, if you had of read the OP I assumed space-time acted like a wave, meaning it can change because it fluctuates randomly, just as all the most fundamental aspects of reality act like a wave. We do not need to start with anything "physical" because my theory assumes that all things "physical" are really just condensed braided forms of space-time which eventually arise from the natural space-time fluctuations.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten


edit to address your edit.
Very interesting concept with the wave frequency! with each dimension represented by a wave, the lowest having the greatest frequency and changing as the dimensions increase would produce a frequency that was straight and unmoving as the result... very, very interesting!

edit on 7-6-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)

So, without the interaction of the two different "voids", nothing can be created in the void of the paper.
Our visual perception of the paper remains in 2 dimensions, even though we can represent 3 dimensions on it. That implies that we can represent the 4 dimensions in our 3 dimensional space and when we include time as the 4th dimension, we should be able to represent the 5th dimension and so on. ...although we don't presently know what the component of the 5th on up would be, if we knew them, we could incorporate them into the previous model to get to that model.

I have underlined a portion of you explanation above. Because, its not really how it takes place. Its not a interaction between the paper and the pencil/pen that form the new dimension. Its in reality the paper that must form the new dimension by it self. How it is done, i will explain a bit later.

I just had to point this out since i am not sure that is how you understood the concept.

The other thing is time. Time must have started before the new physical dimension took shape. Because it takes time to shape something. So physical time is not the 4th dimension. Time is the time the infinite dimension uses to form the first dimension. But as soon as the first clock starts a new clock is also started. "This is going to get pretty complicated". But to make it a bit easier to grasp, think of compression and expansion. They both take time, but the two are where different. Because expansions represent our physical clock. The compression does not.
We live in a physical dimension that is expanding.

I guess this will get you thinking

I will comment on the rest on this page, But you can look at this meanwhile. It takes time to do all this.

What are your thoughts on the magnitude of the number of dimensions? Would there be infinitely many or would there be a finite number?

Well, i like to say that the infinite can house them all. So there is a finite amount of finite dimensions. There can never be a infinite of them. When one becomes infinite it has become what it used to be. To become means: when the dimension has expanded the distance from being a finite to being infinite. There are two ways to look at this distance. And the distance is different depending on where you observe the distance from. If you measure the distance from the infinite, finite energy will be right there. If you observe the distance from earth, the infinite will seam very very far away. If you draw a circle on a paper and earth as a dot in the middle, you will understand.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool

The form of energy that any energy is at any given point in time is like a standing domino ready to be knocked over as it leans into the next domino which is the next form it will be transferred into from photons to electrical human thought. There is no way around this effect not even in the mind of a theoretical physicist's thinking in terms of quantum physics.

Actually that's where you're completely wrong. It's not like a "domino effect", it's more like the addition of probabilities or the addition of wave forms as the dominoes contact each other. This is established by the fact that fundamental particles such as photons and electrons can produce interference patterns, that is conclusive proof that reality is based on particle-waves which have no certain position, their position is 'smeared' out in a cloud of probable positions. When you try to observe their exact position you collapse the wave function, and this is not something you can debate with me, because this is the very basics of quantum mechanics and there are countless experiments and observations which prove this to be a fact of reality.

Trust me, scientists didn't like this stuff either when they first learnt about it because it meant the system of reality was not a completely deterministic mechanical device which could be predicted at every single state, including future states (being able to predict the future with math simply violates too many conditions of reality)... but they had not other choice because the data cannot be denied... if it wasn't for quantum mechanics your computer wouldn't even work because semi-conductors wouldn't work. Even the electrons in atoms are not in one position, they are in a standing wave state around the nucleus at discrete energy levels... if this weren't true then the known elements would not have their signature photon emission spectrum associated with the energy levels in each atom measured when the electrons undergo a "quantum leap" between each energy level and release photons.

You can't introduce new energy into the Universe nor destroy existing energy, exiting it somehow

Yes you can actually create and destroy energy, even Hawking now believes the energy for the Universe came from 'nothing'. If you don't believe that then I would like to hear you idea of where it came from... let me guess, it was here all along right?

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

I don't see why an infinite state needs to be "constant". We are talking about infinite space-time here, if you had of read the OP I assumed space-time acted like a wave, meaning it can change because it fluctuates randomly, just as all the most fundamental aspects of reality act like a wave. We do not need to start with anything "physical" because my theory assumes that all things "physical" are really just condensed braided forms of space-time which eventually arise from the natural space-time fluctuations.

But infinite time-space dosent exist. Not as a finite unit. A infinite space dosent have a running clock, because its not running. It is only running if it is creating something. And the infinite has already done that. We are on a different clock. We are fallowing a finite clock, because of the expansion of finite space.

When infinite space is creating something; a compression clock is ticking. Because it takes time to create/form a physical dimension that is not infinite. We dont fallow that clock at all. Because the time it takes to create is a whole different process, then the process of expansion. Thereby a different clock.

I assumed space-time acted like a wave, meaning it can change because it fluctuates randomly, just as all the most fundamental aspects of reality act like a wave. We do not need to start with anything "physical" because my theory assumes that all things "physical" are really just condensed braided forms of space-time which eventually arise from the natural space-time fluctuations.

Physical infinite space/void can not be a wave that fluctuate randomly. What would create the random wave in the void? A void that has a wave form is not infinite-time space. Because there is a external force present to form the random wave. There is time there that is correct. And that is the problem.

Originally posted by spy66

I have underlined a portion of you explanation above. Because, its not really how it takes place. Its not a interaction between the paper and the pencil/pen that form the new dimension. Its in reality the paper that must form the new dimension by it self. How it is done, i will explain a bit later.

I just had to point this out since i am not sure that is how you understood the concept.

Yes, I see what you are saying, my rewording didn't have the effect I was hoping for, more of an extension of an idea to another possibility I believe.

The other thing is time. Time must have started before the new physical dimension took shape. Because it takes time to shape something. So physical time is not the 4th dimension. Time is the time the infinite dimension uses to form the first dimension. But as soon as the first clock starts a new clock is also started. "This is going to get pretty complicated". But to make it a bit easier to grasp, think of compression and expansion. They both take time, but the two are where different. Because expansions represent our physical clock. The compression does not.
We live in a physical dimension that is expanding.

I guess this will get you thinking

I will comment on the rest on this page, But you can look at this meanwhile. It takes time to do all this.

I was probably over-generalizing there, I see what you mean by it not being the 4th dimension since it is relative to where it exists.

reply to post by spy66


I'm sorry I just can't understand your logic and terminology, it's all just mumbo-jumbo to me. I need clear precise explanations which follow known science and established theories. Reading what you say is like reading the theories of a mad professor from another dimension.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Yes you can actually create and destroy energy, even Hawking now believes the energy for the Universe came from 'nothing'. If you don't believe that then I would like to hear you idea of where it came from... let me guess, it was here all along right?

edit on 7-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

You are misinterpreting Hawking. Please provide the source of this claim, as it is incorrect.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by spy66

 

I'm sorry I just can't understand your logic and terminology, it's all just mumbo-jumbo to me. I need clear precise explanations which follow known science and established theories. Reading what you say is like reading the theories of a mad professor from another dimension.

Actually, what he is saying is very precise and does follow known science and established theories. Perhaps they are theories you have not yet been exposed to? As far as the terminology, keep in mind that English is not his native language, but the terminology he is using is correct, just not in layman's terms.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


The source is the very first video I posted in the opening thread... right at the top, along with the quote about getting a Universe for free. He posits the same theory I am positing here, that space-time can literally fluctuate like a wave and from that space-time turbulence arises negative and positive energy. This is where he believes the energy for the Universe came from, and quite frankly it's the most likely explanation imo... it's the only rational to explain why we have something in the Universe rather than nothing... because things can come from nothing, assuming you have negative-things to balance them out. I developed The Theory of NoThing before I even knew Hawking believed almost exactly the same thing.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

The source is the very first video I posted in the opening thread... right at the top, along with the quote about getting a Universe for free. He posits the same theory I am positing here, that space-time can literally fluctuate like a wave and from that space-time turbulence arises negative and positive energy. This is where he believes the energy for the Universe came from, and quite frankly it's the most likely explanation imo... it's the only rational to explain why we have something in the Universe rather than nothing... because things can come from nothing, assuming you have negative-things to balance them out. I developed The Theory of NoThing before I even knew Hawking believed almost exactly the same thing.

That's not what he's stating sweetie.... You are misunderstanding what is going on.

....looking back at the OP, I remember why I didn't bother sticking around before though
How's that free-energy generator coming for you?

reply to post by spy66

Physical infinite space/void can not be a wave that fluctuate randomly. What would create the random wave in the void?

Nothing 'creates' the fluctuation, it's just how reality works... "when you have nothing you get something". The chances of absolutely nothing happening in infinite space-time is 0. It is the pure raw condition of reality to exhibit changes even under condition where one wouldn't expect to see changes. It can't be helped, because reality is not a perfect clockwork machine, it's a fuzzy wave of probability. Empty space-time bubbles and churns because it must, it's a mathematical certainty. I know this wont satisfy you but I can't state it any better than that.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by spy66

 

Reading what you say is like reading the theories of a mad professor from another dimension.

I know. And its just as frustrating to me. But let us do it like this.

1. Can you tell me what causes the infinite time-space to have a random fluctuation?

2. How can infinite time-space have motion? How can it have time.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by spy66

 

Physical infinite space/void can not be a wave that fluctuate randomly. What would create the random wave in the void?

Nothing 'creates' the fluctuation, it's just how reality works... "when you have nothing you get something". The chances of absolutely nothing happening in infinite space-time is 0. It is the pure raw condition of reality to exhibit changes even under condition where one wouldn't expect to see changes. It can't be helped, because reality is not a perfect clockwork machine, it's a fuzzy wave of probability. Empty space-time bubbles and churns because it must, it's a mathematical certainty. I know this wont satisfy you but I can't state it any better than that.

edit on 7-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

still absolutely incorrect... you are ignoring basic principles, laws and the reseach and theories of Hawking himself
I think perhaps you don't have the basic skills with which to understand them with as of yet