T = 0

reply to post by Pinke

I think Hawking's belief is that the laws of physics mean that the universe was inevitable, as in it was always going to create itself from nothing due to those rules. Perhaps I'm wrong though? I don't think it was that there is no cause exactly, just that the universe / physics itself is the cause in Hawking's opinion.

Hawking fatally fails to make a distinction between 'no thing' and nothingness. They are not the same. No thing is no created or constructed thing. Nothingness cannot give rise to something because nothingness is simply not there.

The universe is a created thing. Without it there can be 'no thing' ie no nameable thing. This is not nothingness, it is the void. It is existence itself, the source of all created or constructed things.

Matter is a construction. If you deconstruct matter you end up with energy. It might be that energy itself can be deconstructed into a more fundamental kind of energy but this process of deconstruction cannot go on without end. There must be some ultimate substance that keeps constructed things in being. This substance is the source of the universe as it is incoherent to say something can come from absolute nothingness. The difference between 'no (created or nameable) thing' and nothingness is a basic philosophical observation but Hawking leaves this distinction out, thus leading the audience to imagine the impossible; that something comes from nothingness. I strongly suspect an atheistic agenda here.

The essential question that the Theist/Atheist debate is trying to answer is whether existence is conscious. If it is it is God. Existence is not a property of God - or of anything else - existence and God are the same thing.

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Blue Shift

 

with the universe both expanding and curving in on itself

As far as we can tell, the Universe does not curve in on its self:

The way I understand it, if you look out into the night sky at the billions of stars and galaxies out there, the farther away something is, the further back in time it is. That's part of what makes the Deep Field images so cool. But the trick is the further back in time you go, the closer everything is to everything else, due to the expansion. That means that although we see the sky as if from the inside of a dome, what we're really seeing is down into a hole.

If you had a rocket ship that could go at infinite speed and surpass time and space, and you wanted to go back to the Big Bang you could point your rocket in any direction and get there. That's the universe curving back in on itself, and that graphically represented in a torus.

EnPassant
In this case t = 0 refers to the beginning of time at the big bang.

In taking a logical extension of T=0, light and all else that travels at the speed of light is still at the beginning of time, be that the big bang or where ever else it may of started.

EnPassant
I'm reading Jim Holt's book Why does the World Exist? and I have come across this Hawkingesque idea about the beginning of time, early on in the book, and I'd like to explain why I think this idea is philosophically naive.

Hawking's idea is that the question "What came before the universe?" is null and void, because at the beginning of the Big Bang there is a beginning to time and there was no time before that.

Well and good. But the argument goes on to say that this fact means that the universe does not need a cause because there was no time before t = 0, for a cause to exist. This, to my mind, is a thundering fallacy and shows how naive Hawking is when it comes to philosophy.

First a few notes on time.

It has been said that change is the definition of time. While change is evidence of time it is not a sufficient definition of time. Rather, time is that order according to which change comes about. It is the WAY change happens.

It is now well established that quanta behave independently of time and causality. They can change regardless of time. Spooky action as Einstein rather amusingly called it.

EnPassant
Einstein's general relativity describes how change happens in physical terms and as such it can be seen to be a mathematical description of how change happens. This is the correct definition of time, from which we get the concept of spacetime. Spacetime is a mathematical order - it is not change - and as such it is a more rigorous definition of time. Time is the order of things. This order, abstractly, does not require the flow of time. It is a timeless order according to which change happens.

Can you clarify which sections of the General Theory of Relativity you are referring to as I am confused. My understanding of General Relativity is that Einstein proved time is observer dependent, it is not constant. It is very much linked to gravitational potential and an observer closer to a gravitational source (lower gravitational potential) will experience time passing more slowly than an observer with a higher gravitational potential. Time dilation is at the heart of General Relativity, it is subject to universal constants but any notion of time as some kind of order is merely an artefact of our point of view and not the fundamental nature of the Universe. This is further underlined by the fact General Relativity is firmly rooted in Newtonian Physics and Einstein could not reconcile it with Quantum Physics, despite trying for the majority of his academic life.

The only order that can be gleaned from General Relativity is not even Einstein's work but the work he built it on, that of German Mathematician Emmy Noether, who established the underlying symmetries of both Newtonian and Quantum physics.

EnPassant
Now when it comes to cause and effect, it is a mistake to imagine that cause and effect are necessarily separated by the flow of time. All that is required is that there is an ordered, necessary relationship between cause and effect. The flow of time is not required. Here are some examples of necessary relationships (cause and effect) that are not dependent on change or the flow of time.

Imagine you are drawing a triangle. You have two sides drawn and are in the process of drawing the third side. The triangle does not exist until you have completed drawing the third side. Only when you have completed the third side does the triangle exist. But the moment the triangle exists the area of the triangle also exists - as do many other properties. There is a necessary relationship between the triangle and its area. The triangle is the cause and the area is the effect but both triangle (cause) and area (effect) come into existence at the same instant. No temporal separation between cause and effect as they come into existence simultaneously.

The sides of a triangle are not the 'cause' of its area, there is an abstract relationship between the Euclidian dimensions of a triangle and its area but this always exists, even before you draw it, it doesn't magically 'pop' into existence because you decide to put pencil to paper. There is no cause and effect just the retroaction of your mind applying a known set of relationships to a abstract object.

EnPassant
In mathematical logic 1 + 1 = 2. There is a necessary relationship between the 1s and the 2. In this relationship time, as defined above, as the order underlying relationships, exists, but the flow of time is not necessary. Indeed, in the mind, time exists as an order, whence necessary mathematical and logical relationships exist in a time order that does not require the flow of time or temporal precedence. All that is required is a set of necessary relationships. In this respect logic is to the mind what time is to the physical universe: it is the order inherent in relationships. Logic = time. Indeed, any mathematical system is the equivalent of time in the way that general relativity is time in physical terms.

Logic is of no intrinsic value in and of itself, it is simply a framework upon which we hang facts about our world.

I'm really struggling to see how you connect abstract notions such as mathematics with emergent properties of sub atomic systems, such as spacetime (and by inference time itself).

EnPassant
In other words, one thing can precede another without the need for simple time (the flow of time). There can be a logical precedence or necessity that does not require the flow of time. This is why the definition of time needs to be rigorously defined, as above.

Given these facts we can see how Hawking is being naive when he imagines that there must be a flow of time for the universe to be necessarily dependent on a preceding event. Such an event would not require the flow of time to exist. All that would be needed would be a logical or necessary relationship between the universe an its cause.

Another way to see how the flow of time is not necessary for logical relationships is to imagine you are opening a door. To open the door you must put the key in the lock, turn it, and push to door open. You could do this very slowly so that it takes five minutes to open the door, or you could do it quickly, in two seconds. The flow of time, here, is not, in principle, a factor. All that is required is the necessary relationships between events; the key must be turned if the door is to open. This logical dependency is purely geometric and arises out of the order of spacetime, not the flow of time. Indeed, it may turn out that the flow of time is a purely human, subjective, experience. What all this means is that the universe does not need a cause that precedes it in temporal terms but does precede it in logical or necessary terms so there is no need for an earlier cause to exist before t = 0.

edit on 16-12-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

Time does not exist in a subatomic world, but we exist in a macro universe and can only frame our observations using spacetime, even when this leads to causality violations, which it can do.

It goes without saying our perception of the universe is fundamentally tethered to our humanity.

reply to post by EnPassant

You are talking about the subjective experience of time. All that is necessary are the laws of nature to tell us that there is an order in spacetime. This order allows science to be possible. It is the regularity and predictibility of events that tells us there is an order in things. This order is time. The subjective experience of the flow of time is a pedestrian experience of the order according to which events are related. It is the order itself that is important, not subjective experience of it.

You are mistaken. There is no absolute order to events in spacetime. Please see:

Postulates of Special Relativity

Light Cones

Consider a train pulling carriages. One carriage pulls the other without the need for the passage of time for the cause and effect to obtain.

The preceding car is not the cause of the succeeding car's motion. The cause is the force being exerted through the coupling. There is a definite time lag between the application of this force and the resulting motion of the carriage: coupling slack is taken up, metal expands, static or rolling friction is overcome, and only then does the carriage accelerate. There are also, as shown below, time and velocity lags between individual carriages.

Longitudinal Train Dynamics

By including the Ft/db in each equation, thus on every vehicle, the equations can be applied to any locomotive placement or system of distributed power. For unpowered vehicles Ft/db is set to zero. For nonlinear modelling of the system, the stiffness and damping constants are replaced with functions. It is usual to express stiffness as a function of displacement and incorporate coupler slack and piece-wise-linear approximations of draft gear response. Damping is usually expressed as a function of velocity. More complex functions, incorporating a second independent variable, (i.e., displacement and velocity for a stiffness function), can also be used. The generalised nonlinear equations are therefore:

For the lead vehicle: [equation]

For the ith vehicle: [equation]

For the nth or last vehicle: [equation]

Sou rce

You can view the equations and definitions of the terms they contain on the source page, which is a cached version of a downloadable PDF.

Cause and effect are one type of necessary order. Mathematical statements are another. In time two raindrops can become one raindrop but in mathematical order there is no need for the passage of time. Time is simply the order of things. In mathematics time is the logical relationship between the elements of a statement.

Mathematical statements do not necessarily imply sequential order. They simply relate terms to each other.

The flow of time is not a factor in the definition of the logical relationships.

Granted, but that does not imply that the universe must have a cause, or that anything exists outside spacetime. What you would have to show is that time is not a factor in causal relationships — and that is an absurd proposition.

Hawking cannot make an appeal to a need for an earlier time than t = 0 to make a cause of the universe possible.

He is not doing that. I have read A Brief History of Time more than once. He is saying that the question 'what happened (or existed) before the Big Bang?' is meaningless. He is pointing out a common misunderstanding of the properties of the universe and of spacetime — one into which, I am compelled to say, you have fallen. Here is the relevant passage:

...if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as if there was a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!

— Hawking, A Brief History of Time

Finally, about this:

Another example of cause and effect that do not need the flow of time is the EPR experiment. It seems to operate outside normal time.

Unless you understand physics, I beg you not to invoke phenomena like the EPR paradox and nonlocality. I notice you did not respond to my question regarding general relativity. I think this was wise; there are people on ATS, especially in this subforum, who actually do know their physics very well.

reply to post by Astyanax

You are mistaken. There is no absolute order to events in spacetime.

I don't mean the sequential order of events in time. I am talking about the order of the mathematical system that DESCRIBES the structure of space time. This system is an order of things that is un changing. Even the relativity of experienced events is determined by this mathematical order. Both matter and it's attendant space time are emergent phenomena. Ultimately matter, as such, is not a substance, it is geometry, as is space time. Quantum fields of energy assume a certain geometry. This geometry is matter and space time. This geometric construct is what I am talking about when I speak about order. Because the classical world is geometry (in motion) it's source, or cause, must reside outside it in the fields of energy from where it comes; classical physics cannot be fully explained by classical concepts. The geometric or mathematical description of energy is other than classical space time - it is said quantum reality needs 10 or 12 dimensions of space time - consequently cause and effect in classical space time are prescripted in the source of the classical world. This prescription can, conceptually, be seen to be independent of time - of the flow of time, in classical terms. This is why I say the flow of time is not relevant in the relationship between cause and effect because that very mathematical ORDER determines how cause and effect will play out. This order necessarily precedes events in classical space but the essential point is that this precedence is mathematical not necessarily temporal in experiential terms. In short, the classical universe exists, in potential, from t = 0 and so does its cause so there is no need for t < 0.

reply to post by Astyanax

Granted, but that does not imply that the universe must have a cause, or that anything exists outside spacetime. What you would have to show is that time is not a factor in causal relationships — and that is an absurd proposition.

That depends entirely on what you understand time to be. It is not merely change, it is the way change happens. No matter how you look at it there is a prescription - broadly speaking, the laws of nature - for how change happens and the flow of time has no relevance to the nature of this prescription because the very flow is prescripted. Clearly, if classical geometry is emergent, and the temporal relationship between cause and effect are also part of this prescription, then the flow of time is nothing more than a pedestrian experience of part this geometric order, which must have its source outside classical space time. It hardly means much to measure this order of things in terms of the passage of time when that very flow of time is part of the prescription. In other words, the flow of time itself is nothing more than part of the emergent classical geometry. It is the source, or prescription, for that geometry that matters.

reply to post by EnPassant


I am afraid your attempt at clarification is little better than gibberish.

You invoke a source from which matter and spacetime emerge. No such source is known to exist. It is not even agreed that one should exist. Certainly no-one is in a position to make any definite assertions about such a thing, as you are attempting to do.

String theory and the mysteries hinted at by the discovery of the amplituhedron are entirely conjectural. They provide no support for your argument. Surely you do not imagine that Stephen Hawking was unacquainted with string theory when he wrote his book?

An acquaintance with physical cosmology based on half-understood articles in the popular press is insufficient grounding for anyone who wishes to contradict the world's most famous living physicist on the subject. You have no idea how many howlers you have already perpetrated, but I shall spare your blushes. I merely suggest you give this thread up for lost, collect your thoughts and start another one, this time on a topic of which you have some genuine knowledge.

Astyanax
reply to post by EnPassant

 

I am afraid your attempt at clarification is little better than gibberish.

You invoke a source from which matter and spacetime emerge. No such source is known to exist. It is not even agreed that one should exist. Certainly no-one is in a position to make any definite assertions about such a thing, as you are attempting to do.

String theory and the mysteries hinted at by the discovery of the amplituhedron are entirely conjectural. They provide no support for your argument. Surely you do not imagine that Stephen Hawking was unacquainted with string theory when he wrote his book?

An acquaintance with physical cosmology based on half-understood articles in the popular press is insufficient grounding for anyone who wishes to contradict the world's most famous living physicist on the subject. You have no idea how many howlers you have already perpetrated, but I shall spare your blushes. I merely suggest you give this thread up for lost, collect your thoughts and start another one, this time on a topic of which you have some genuine knowledge.

I am not criticizing Hawking in scientific terms but in philosophical terms. The 'howlers' you see are really an artifact of how you are reading my post, but my point is subtle. The source of matter and spacetime is well known. It is the field of energy in the universe. There is nothing mysterious about this. Maybe this post will make things clearer.

reply to post by Astyanax


What is being said in the link I provided in my last post requires a thought experiment to understand. This is only a thought experiment so don't get bogged down in details. Imagine an n dimensional reality for n > 4. This reality is non material. It is made of energy. The mathematical description of this reality is not equivalent to the description of classical spacetime involving matter. In effect it is a distinct universe, distinct from the one we live in. Now imagine that parts of this universe condense into material geometry with its attendant material spacetime. We now have two distinct universes, the original n dimensional one and, parallel to it, the ordinary classical geometry. I am justified in positing two universes because the universe of energy has a different mathematical description than the mathematical description of classical space. In this thought experiment it is easy to see that the classical universe of matter emerges from the original n dimensional field of energy. Two universes!

Now, given that the material geometry is an emergent phenomena, it is clear that the source of material geometry comes from, what is in effect, another universe. This universe of energy is not 'somewhere else' it is here in our local space but it is geometrically distinct from the material geometry - what we normally refer to when we speak about spacetime.

When scientists set up an experiment such as the EPR or two slit experiments, the scientists are constructing the physical experiment in classical terms. Consequently the trace effects they record from the quantum universe are recorded in classical terms. In other words, an n dimensional event, is reduced to 4 dimensional terms. In general for n > m, if an n dimensional event is 'projected' onto an m dimensional surface, information is lost. A three dimensional object casting a shadow on a two dimensional wall results in the loss of information; a whole dimension of information is lost, or distorted.

This is why quantum reality is said to be 'anomalous' or strange. Information is lost in translation. Part of the problem arises from the fact that scientists are obliged to use classical time to measure an event in n dimensional reality for n > 4. To say that quantum reality is a distinct spacetime - and therefore a distinct universe - is not simply a mathematical formality, it is real. We really are talking about two universes and if you would see things in these terms many things would be clarified.

This n dimensional reality is the source of the material construct. And that is all the material universe is. It is geometry, nothing else. Even mass is not a substance. According to the idea of the Higgs field, mass is a slowing down of energy. Clearly 'slowing down' is an event, not a substance. The material universe is an event in the n dimensional universe of energy.

reply to post by HanoiLullaby

Time does not exist in a subatomic world, but we exist in a macro universe and can only frame our observations using spacetime, even when this leads to causality violations, which it can do.

Classical time does not (see my last two posts.) But time is not simply 'stuff happening' or 'change'. Time is the WAY change happens. It is spacetime. General Relativity describes material spacetime. But if there is a universe of energy then the mathematical description of the way change happens in that universe is a description of time. But it is not classical time. All matter can, in principle, evaporate back into pure energy. If this happened classical time would vanish. But quantum time would still exist. You would still have a field of energy, undergoing change in space and that is all that is required for time to exist. Time is merely a description of events and relationships. The geometry or nature of time depends on the nature of the reality it is describing, energy or matter.

empassant...have you considered that human intelligence might be too limited to explain what happens in the universe. personally, I find it strange, when scientists come out and say how "old" the universe is. they are relying on observation with the latest instruments that are understandable to our highest intellectual capability at this point in time.
we can observe a black hole, but our physics cannot explain how exactly it is formed, what happens in it, or the changes that occur.
we can observe the effects of dark matter, and the effects or dark energy, but have no idea what it is.
scientists, on the other hand have no way of observing the "big bang", nor the "edge of our universe" and yet, they make hard and fast statements as if they do.
there may even be an entirely different "mathematical" language, that we 1.) haven't discovered yet, or 2.) is beyond the scope of human understanding.

reply to post by EnPassant

I am not criticizing Hawking in scientific terms but in philosophical terms.

Then you should have started your thread in the Philosophy forum, not in this one.

Anyway, your claim is false. There is nothing philosophical about your criticism of Hawking's work; it is magical and superstitious, not philosophical. You are attempting to refute his ideas based on a personal view of reality that you have introduced without either logical argument or empirical proof.

Some of us here have actually studied physics. And philosophy. As it happens, I am also something of a connoisseur of mumbo-jumbo, and I can recognise it when I see it.

Astyanax
reply to post by EnPassant

 

I am not criticizing Hawking in scientific terms but in philosophical terms.

Then you should have started your thread in the Philosophy forum, not in this one.

Anyway, your claim is false. There is nothing philosophical about your criticism of Hawking's work; it is magical and superstitious, not philosophical. You are attempting to refute his ideas based on a personal view of reality that you have introduced without either logical argument or empirical proof.

Some of us here have actually studied physics. And philosophy. As it happens, I am also something of a connoisseur of mumbo-jumbo, and I can recognise it when I see it.

Well well, mind firmly closed? Listen, if you can't grasp what I am saying there is no need to try character assassination. You will not understand my argument unless you ask intelligent questions about it. Here are some questions for you. If you answer them satisfactorily (even to your own satisfaction) you will get my drift.

1. Are fields of energy - quantum reality - truly anomalous or 'weird' or is that just an artifact of trying to measure energy with classical tools?

2. If an energy field exists according to a pattern that can, in principle, be described mathematically does that mean it is ordered and has a well defined nature?

3. Can that nature be described by classical means?

4. If not does that mean quantum reality has a spacetime that is not classical?

5. If quantum reality has a classical spacetime why are scientists perplexed by it?

6. If quantum reality has no spacetime does that mean it is truly chaotic?

7. If it is chaotic how can quantum fields of energy hold matter in being?

8. Does the stability of matter imply quantum fields are stable - ie. are ordered?

9. If they are ordered is that equivalent to a quantum spacetime?

10. What is spacetime?

The basic question: Why is there something, rather than nothing ? seems valid, philosophically, even if it is not one that science is currently equipped to deal with. The insistence that this question is invalid is a product of the philosophy of science, reductive materialism. This is scarcely the only alternative, philosophically speaking.

reply to post by EnPassant


Ive come to the conclusion (still cautious of it) that time is (nothing more then) the transfer/transformation of energy. What think you of that? And yes the sequence of events is also part of the concept time. And I followed your OP, and think I catch your drift. It makes me think, with regards to your points on confusing sequencing, what caused what and what does that cause etc. Its like if you had a large room and an open ceiling and dropped 1000 basketballs in and then tried to determine what ball caused what ball to move where and when. I also am envoked to wonder if the concept of time would exist, if say, all that existed as the universe, all that existed forever was just the idea of that game pong, 2 paddles and a ball, and they had no friction, and hypothetically for some reason the ball was put in motion, and it literally bounced back and forth forever, with no observers, with yes change, yes relative sequence of events, but still, the same constant unwavering event, with no true detection of difference, would their be such thing as time? Related to the Hawking skepticism, if that scenario I just described was a symbolic universe, hawking is claiming that the ball 'just started moving', actually that the ball just appeared out of no where, and that before it appeared, nothing existed, nothing moved, nothing changed, no time.

ImaFungi
reply to post by EnPassant

 

Ive come to the conclusion (still cautious of it) that time is (nothing more then) the transfer/transformation of energy. What think you of that? And yes the sequence of events is also part of the concept time. And I followed your OP, and think I catch your drift. It makes me think, with regards to your points on confusing sequencing, what caused what and what does that cause etc. Its like if you had a large room and an open ceiling and dropped 1000 basketballs in and then tried to determine what ball caused what ball to move where and when. I also am envoked to wonder if the concept of time would exist, if say, all that existed as the universe, all that existed forever was just the idea of that game pong, 2 paddles and a ball, and they had no friction, and hypothetically for some reason the ball was put in motion, and it literally bounced back and forth forever, with no observers, with yes change, yes relative sequence of events, but still, the same constant unwavering event, with no true detection of difference, would their be such thing as time? Related to the Hawking skepticism, if that scenario I just described was a symbolic universe, hawking is claiming that the ball 'just started moving', actually that the ball just appeared out of no where, and that before it appeared, nothing existed, nothing moved, nothing changed, no time.

edit on 19-12-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

These are interesting thoughts. I had a similar idea about a universe consisting of nothing but a rotating sphere. If there are no reference points outside the sphere is it logical to say this sphere is rotating? (assuming the sphere is made of some kind of perfectly homogenous stuff with no marks on it.)

You could argue that the sphere has momentum but Mach's Principle says that it would only have momentum if a surrounding universe existed.

As for time - the source of matter is a field of energy in the universe. Consequently, the source of classical spacetime (which is geometry) is in this field of energy. But this field of energy is 'outside' the classical geometry, the macroscopic geometry. This means that everything that happens in the material geometry is determined elsewhere, outside the material universe. The cause of things is deep in the fields of energy in the universe.

But matter and mass are merely geometry, they don't exist in the naive way our physical senses tell us. They are concepts. The hydrogen atom is a concept. The substance of this concept is energy. But what is energy? Ultimately it is substance because all cannot be geometry, abstraction.

In this way the cause of time in the classical universe - which is really only a mirage of geometry - is in quantum reality. So, the way time proceeds is determined elsewhere, in fields of energy beyond classical spacetime. This means that the WAY cause and effect play out in classical geometry is prescribed elsewhere.

EnPassant


These are interesting thoughts. I had a similar idea about a universe consisting of nothing but a rotating sphere. If there are no reference points outside the sphere is it logical to say this sphere is rotating? (assuming the sphere is made of some kind of perfectly homogenous stuff with no marks on it.)

You could argue that the sphere has momentum but Mach's Principle says that it would only have momentum if a surrounding universe existed.

Yes, well perhaps that is why people say time did not exist before the universe, and the term singularity is thrown around. If the universe was a perfectly homogenous, singular substance, with no difference throughout, with no change about it, with no motion or movement, how could time be measured (it would be like an observer cryogenically frozen, being asked upon awakening how much time has elapsed since they were frozen...Is that time travel, being frozen slows down the transfer of energy=preservation of material, so relative to that material no time has passed, if theoretically it was perfectly completely frozen)? It would only be able to be measured in relation, to when this entity was formed, and when the entity was unformed, which would be the beginning of our known universe. Because it is unknown mystery as to how the universe was created, where, and how and why it came from and to, the singularity event is how a timeless, homogenous, motionless, singular substance, began to change. Yes in a similar nature of intrigue, about a rotating sphere could be said, is the earth spinning counter clockwise or clockwise, it would depend on the observers placement to that sphere, upside down or right side up.

As for time - the source of matter is a field of energy in the universe. Consequently, the source of classical spacetime (which is geometry) is in this field of energy. But this field of energy is 'outside' the classical geometry, the macroscopic geometry. This means that everything that happens in the material geometry is determined elsewhere, outside the material universe. The cause of things is deep in the fields of energy in the universe.

Im not so sure about my or your understanding of these terms and the reality they attempt to symbolize. For thinking about this, when you say in the universe, are you insinuating there is an outside of the universe? I dont know how to go about this part of the discussion. If I try and think I am grasping what you mean to bring to my attention, is that there is an energetic nature to the universe, which is more subtle then the material, such as Em radiation, gravity maybe... Or if you also mean to include the fundamental structure of matter, quarks and the forces. and that the material these build, atoms, molecules, trees, are macroscopic geometries, that are created "deep" (which means deep within?) the confines of the universe? Like the macro classical geometries are a lagging projection of the hyper speedy energetic geometries of the micro universe...idk. This is something ive thought about, what comes first the big or the small, and what affects what most the big or the small, or if it is one of those triangle situations, where they both affect and create and are each other at the same time or something. Like do galaxies move subatomic particles or are galaxies; moving subatomic particles.

But matter and mass are merely geometry, they don't exist in the naive way our physical senses tell us. They are concepts. The hydrogen atom is a concept. The substance of this concept is energy. But what is energy? Ultimately it is substance because all cannot be geometry, abstraction.

In this way the cause of time in the classical universe - which is really only a mirage of geometry - is in quantum reality. So, the way time proceeds is determined elsewhere, in fields of energy beyond classical spacetime. This means that the WAY cause and effect play out in classical geometry is prescribed elsewhere.

Hm im not sure I follow. It seems the main point you want to prove and believe, is that somewhere else what exists right here right now is determined. I dont see the logic of how you draw that conclusion, and I dont know what and where you mean by somewhere else. Can you give an example of how somewhere else affects what occurs here, for example, I am about to get up, walk, and make a sandwich, are you suggesting all this movement, and expenditure of energy, and the geometry of me and the changes to the geometry of me during this event, is all calculated, formulated, decided, created outside of the universe?

reply to post by ImaFungi


The 'elsewhere' is quantum spacetime, which is 'here' locally but because energy has a non classical mathematical description its spacetime geometry constitutes a distinct universe. It you haven't read this link it might make my point clearer.

EnPassant
reply to post by HanoiLullaby

 

Time does not exist in a subatomic world, but we exist in a macro universe and can only frame our observations using spacetime, even when this leads to causality violations, which it can do.

Classical time does not (see my last two posts.) But time is not simply 'stuff happening' or 'change'. Time is the WAY change happens. It is spacetime. General Relativity describes material spacetime. But if there is a universe of energy then the mathematical description of the way change happens in that universe is a description of time. But it is not classical time. All matter can, in principle, evaporate back into pure energy. If this happened classical time would vanish. But quantum time would still exist. You would still have a field of energy, undergoing change in space and that is all that is required for time to exist. Time is merely a description of events and relationships. The geometry or nature of time depends on the nature of the reality it is describing, energy or matter.

If you make the statement that time is not "simply 'stuff happening' or 'change' " then how can you follow that with the statement that a "field of energy, undergoing change in space" is all that is required for time to exist, that is contradictory.

What is change if it is not a description of events and relationships?

I think your debate is fatally flawed.