bytesplicer,,
Ok if time is measured by events, actions , we could argue that for the matter to all be in the bb site waiting to go bang , this would take time to organize . It would have taken a considerable amount of time to slowly gobble up everything in the known universe . Think of it like surviver black hole , only the biggest one remains at the end . This would all take time ,, and I'm sure we could estimate how much time , does this mean that time would then extend into the previous cycle???
On Time and Archaeology
Re: On Time and Archaeology
Now that doesn't make any sense at all . We can create a vacuum here on earth, they have done it . As long as the vessel they are emptying can hold the pressure than can remove all of the matter . The vessel does not shrink, it still contains the same amount of space. The space is still there .Notvacka wrote:I guess that I should stop nagging you about this, Godfree, but please read up on the basics before stating such scientific nonsense. All the space would actually follow the matter into the black hole, and there would be no space left hanging around.Godfree wrote:We can put all of the matter in a black hole. waiting to go bang . But the space is still there!!!
If "the space follows the matter into the black hole" that would take an infinite amount of time,,unless you are imagining that the universe is finite.
You seem to be thinking "space " is a substance . Something we can grab and manipulate. The space would be empty , nothing to apply a force to .
So please explain what would be left in the spot the space was .???
If you say the space would be gone , what is there in it's place???
If you say nothing , is the nothing the same size and volume as the space was,.???
-
bytesplicer
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:02 pm
Re: On Time and Archaeology
Hi Godfree
Not quite sure about this black hole business, I was referring to the original post regarding fossils
The statement about making a vacuum on earth isn't entirely true. While a region of space below a certain density is referred to as a vacuum, or even as space, a perfect vacuum has never been created on earth, and doesn't seem to occur naturally either. The term perfect vacuum, which is what I think you're describing, is used only as a theoretical baseline, i.e. what would happen if this reaction took place in a perfect vacuum. Even the most remote intergalactic regions are teeming with energy, photons on their way somewhere, all kinds of quantum shenanigans, the odd few atoms and of course the microwave background radiation. The upshot of all this is that space *is* a substance, very distinct from a perfect vacuum and the idea of nothingness. Energy has a tendency to move where there is less energy, any vacuum would be short lived if it happened at all as energy from elsewhere would rush to fill the hole.
Taking this in the context of a black hole. What would happen if you did take all the matter/energy in the universe and managed to get it into one black hole (and presumably your ship must go in as well)? There are certain problems with this, it's going to take more energy than exists in the universe to move all the energy in the universe to one place. But assuming you could, at this point you have all the energy in the universe in one place, with nothing else (your perfect vacuum). Sounds like a perfect recipe for a big bang to me Looking at it this way, there would come a point where the big matter pit you're creating would begin spitting out energy faster than you could put it in, trying to balance out the vacuum you're creating around it.
This highlights the flaw in your argument. Your statement about the 'space still being there' within your ship is true, but the space is only still there because your ship is there, a structure of matter and energy. Put the ship in the black hole, and space is still there because the black hole, being a structure of energy, is still there. Remove the black hole and finally you have the perfect vacuum, no energy at all, no space, no time.
A final interesting aside about the size of your ship. If you removed all matter in the universe into the hole, leaving just the black hole and your ship, then statements about the size of your ship are actually meaningless. What you'd have is a larger and larger black hole, and this is the only point of reference for the size of your ship (as you've removed all other points of reference), which (because the hole is growing) is shrinking, relatively speaking.
Not quite sure about this black hole business, I was referring to the original post regarding fossils
The statement about making a vacuum on earth isn't entirely true. While a region of space below a certain density is referred to as a vacuum, or even as space, a perfect vacuum has never been created on earth, and doesn't seem to occur naturally either. The term perfect vacuum, which is what I think you're describing, is used only as a theoretical baseline, i.e. what would happen if this reaction took place in a perfect vacuum. Even the most remote intergalactic regions are teeming with energy, photons on their way somewhere, all kinds of quantum shenanigans, the odd few atoms and of course the microwave background radiation. The upshot of all this is that space *is* a substance, very distinct from a perfect vacuum and the idea of nothingness. Energy has a tendency to move where there is less energy, any vacuum would be short lived if it happened at all as energy from elsewhere would rush to fill the hole.
Taking this in the context of a black hole. What would happen if you did take all the matter/energy in the universe and managed to get it into one black hole (and presumably your ship must go in as well)? There are certain problems with this, it's going to take more energy than exists in the universe to move all the energy in the universe to one place. But assuming you could, at this point you have all the energy in the universe in one place, with nothing else (your perfect vacuum). Sounds like a perfect recipe for a big bang to me
Looking at it this way, there would come a point where the big matter pit you're creating would begin spitting out energy faster than you could put it in, trying to balance out the vacuum you're creating around it.This highlights the flaw in your argument. Your statement about the 'space still being there' within your ship is true, but the space is only still there because your ship is there, a structure of matter and energy. Put the ship in the black hole, and space is still there because the black hole, being a structure of energy, is still there. Remove the black hole and finally you have the perfect vacuum, no energy at all, no space, no time.
A final interesting aside about the size of your ship. If you removed all matter in the universe into the hole, leaving just the black hole and your ship, then statements about the size of your ship are actually meaningless. What you'd have is a larger and larger black hole, and this is the only point of reference for the size of your ship (as you've removed all other points of reference), which (because the hole is growing) is shrinking, relatively speaking.
Re: On Time and Archaeology
Flaw in my argument,,,what,,,a good effort , it didn't really address the question as I see it . So here's the puzzle to me . The big bang is about to happen , is there a universe waiting for the matter to burst into , if not why not and where has it gone. Try not to think of space as an amount of energy or matter , try and see the space as a volume or area . If you think space has energy and matter and to remove this matter removes the space , that makes no sense to me , forget about vacuums and gravity , it's a grid and marked on that grid is one square meter. regardless of how many bangs or vacuums you create will still have a square meter to evaluate.
Or to put it another way , cities are built on towns that were built on a camp site . The place is still there, the space is still there , it may have been destroyed and rebuilt numerous times . But it's still in the same spot the same size . The matter in the universe may come and go , but the universe remains.
Or to put it another way , cities are built on towns that were built on a camp site . The place is still there, the space is still there , it may have been destroyed and rebuilt numerous times . But it's still in the same spot the same size . The matter in the universe may come and go , but the universe remains.
-
bytesplicer
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:02 pm
Re: On Time and Archaeology
Sorry, didn't mean flaw in a bad way! Seems awfully quiet here, nice to have someone to talk to
From my understanding, at the point of the big bang there isn't a universe waiting for the matter to burst into. The universe is the initial singularity, the cosmic egg so to speak. This singularity is space, or rather it will become space, nothing exists outside of it, it may not even necessarily expand, as there's no absolute reference for size. I understand what you're saying, mathematically, space is space and feasibly there is an endless nothing for the universe to expand into, but the argument I would use is that the nothingness to which you refer has no properties such as volume or area, those properties are acquired by the presence of energy, the nothing is literally, nothing. Very hard to conceptualise, none of it really makes that much sense! Similarly, with the metaphor of a growing city, the space on which the settlement grows isn't an empty area waiting to be filled, it is chock full of matter which gives it the properties of area onto which stuff can be built.
I do visualise space the same as you, as a coordinate grid measuring off distances, but these things only have meaning when you're thinking in terms of matter and energy. What is a meter? What meaning does a meter have when there is nothing anywhere? With infinite nothing in all directions you could change that to a kilometre, or any distance at all, and there would be no difference. All measurement systems we use are relational, those relationships ultimately being based upon physical objects. With nothing to measure against 'meter' has no meaning at all, there is no concept of size. Imagine floating in the nothing and seeing a sphere at some point in the distance. How big is that sphere? Is it small and close or larger and distant? Is it spinning? All confusing even with a human observer. Take away the observer and now there is absolutely no reference for the properties of that sphere.
Having said all that, it is very hard to shake the concept of there just being empty space prior to some big bang. It's really hard to think of nothing, most of us visualize blackness or some area or volume, but these are not nothing. I'd almost argue it's impossible to think of nothing, any thought at all results in something, a relationship or image. Nothing is nothing, no relationships exist at all, no dimensions or distance. The universe isn't a bubble floating in an endless sea of nothing. There is only the bubble, the space we perceive entirely contained within it. Of course that could all be wrong, we don't really know if there's anything (or nothing) outside of our universe. Our cause and effect guided brains would suggest some cause for the big bang, which suggests something kick started it, but the same relational mechanisms in our thinking takes us in circles when we try to work it all out.
Yet another way to think about it is to ask yourself the question, "How big is the universe?". You can understand this question in terms of how big is space (i.e. if our telescopes could see right to the edge what is the distance). Another way to think on this question is imagine the universe as a bubble expanding into nothing. Now ask, how big is this bubble? There is of course no answer to this, endless nothing in all directions makes the size of the bubble meaningless. Going back to you meter grid, our whole universe could be one meter, all the sizes we use within scaled accordingly, we wouldn't know the true size of the universe, we perceive distance because of relationships. Our measure of space is only relevant *in* space, within the bubble we call our universe.
You could definitely argue that the nothing acquires meaning and distance when the big bang happens, as now you have a potential baselines reference for size and distance (relative to the singularity), but from what I understand such metrics only apply within the universe, in space defined by matter and energy. Nevertheless it is sort of interesting that energy only acquires meaning relative to nothing, and nothing only acquires meaning relative to energy. I think so anyway
From my understanding, at the point of the big bang there isn't a universe waiting for the matter to burst into. The universe is the initial singularity, the cosmic egg so to speak. This singularity is space, or rather it will become space, nothing exists outside of it, it may not even necessarily expand, as there's no absolute reference for size. I understand what you're saying, mathematically, space is space and feasibly there is an endless nothing for the universe to expand into, but the argument I would use is that the nothingness to which you refer has no properties such as volume or area, those properties are acquired by the presence of energy, the nothing is literally, nothing. Very hard to conceptualise, none of it really makes that much sense! Similarly, with the metaphor of a growing city, the space on which the settlement grows isn't an empty area waiting to be filled, it is chock full of matter which gives it the properties of area onto which stuff can be built.
I do visualise space the same as you, as a coordinate grid measuring off distances, but these things only have meaning when you're thinking in terms of matter and energy. What is a meter? What meaning does a meter have when there is nothing anywhere? With infinite nothing in all directions you could change that to a kilometre, or any distance at all, and there would be no difference. All measurement systems we use are relational, those relationships ultimately being based upon physical objects. With nothing to measure against 'meter' has no meaning at all, there is no concept of size. Imagine floating in the nothing and seeing a sphere at some point in the distance. How big is that sphere? Is it small and close or larger and distant? Is it spinning? All confusing even with a human observer. Take away the observer and now there is absolutely no reference for the properties of that sphere.
Having said all that, it is very hard to shake the concept of there just being empty space prior to some big bang. It's really hard to think of nothing, most of us visualize blackness or some area or volume, but these are not nothing. I'd almost argue it's impossible to think of nothing, any thought at all results in something, a relationship or image. Nothing is nothing, no relationships exist at all, no dimensions or distance. The universe isn't a bubble floating in an endless sea of nothing. There is only the bubble, the space we perceive entirely contained within it. Of course that could all be wrong, we don't really know if there's anything (or nothing) outside of our universe. Our cause and effect guided brains would suggest some cause for the big bang, which suggests something kick started it, but the same relational mechanisms in our thinking takes us in circles when we try to work it all out.
Yet another way to think about it is to ask yourself the question, "How big is the universe?". You can understand this question in terms of how big is space (i.e. if our telescopes could see right to the edge what is the distance). Another way to think on this question is imagine the universe as a bubble expanding into nothing. Now ask, how big is this bubble? There is of course no answer to this, endless nothing in all directions makes the size of the bubble meaningless. Going back to you meter grid, our whole universe could be one meter, all the sizes we use within scaled accordingly, we wouldn't know the true size of the universe, we perceive distance because of relationships. Our measure of space is only relevant *in* space, within the bubble we call our universe.
You could definitely argue that the nothing acquires meaning and distance when the big bang happens, as now you have a potential baselines reference for size and distance (relative to the singularity), but from what I understand such metrics only apply within the universe, in space defined by matter and energy. Nevertheless it is sort of interesting that energy only acquires meaning relative to nothing, and nothing only acquires meaning relative to energy. I think so anyway
Re: On Time and Archaeology
bytesplicer,, "How big is the universe" it is infinite.
The universe cannot be expanding , if it's already there.
Our little corner of the universe may be expanding , but thats not the universe.
I presume the only people wanting there to be "nothing" are the creationists.
In the beginning , needs there to have been a beginning.
If science was to state that the universe is infinite , in both time and space.
Then there was no beginning.
Hubble was a theist, so of course he would be looking for a beginning.
Einstein was a theist, and he came up with some maths that suggested time had a beginning.
When you watch an american movie , it nearly always has a christian moral to it.
No surprise that their science is the same.
The universe cannot be expanding , if it's already there.
Our little corner of the universe may be expanding , but thats not the universe.
I presume the only people wanting there to be "nothing" are the creationists.
In the beginning , needs there to have been a beginning.
If science was to state that the universe is infinite , in both time and space.
Then there was no beginning.
Hubble was a theist, so of course he would be looking for a beginning.
Einstein was a theist, and he came up with some maths that suggested time had a beginning.
When you watch an american movie , it nearly always has a christian moral to it.
No surprise that their science is the same.
Re: On Time and Archaeology
Saw this on the BBC news site this morning: Universe likely to grow forever, scientists say. Thought it might be of interest.
-
bytesplicer
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:02 pm
Re: On Time and Archaeology
Godfree wrote:bytesplicer,, "How big is the universe" it is infinite.
The universe cannot be expanding , if it's already there.
Our little corner of the universe may be expanding , but thats not the universe.
I have to admit, I'm not really sure what you are saying here. Statements of the size of the universe are, from a scientific point of view, meaningless. We have the observable universe, which appears to be expanding, outside of that, who knows?
I presume the only people wanting there to be "nothing" are the creationists.
Not sure creationists want there to be nothing, aren't these the same guys who believe in an eternal god? That doesn't qualify as nothing? Have I misunderstood?
In the beginning , needs there to have been a beginning.
In principle no. Having said that, we have no idea one way or another whether there was a beginning.
If science was to state that the universe is infinite , in both time and space.
Then there was no beginning.
A logical conclusion, but science is not making that statement. My own view on the possible infinity of time and space is - I don't know.
Hubble was a theist, so of course he would be looking for a beginning.
Einstein was a theist, and he came up with some maths that suggested time had a beginning.
I didn't know that about either of those guys. The religious beliefs of scientists doesn't really mean anything to me, whatever makes them happy. If it helps them do good science, fine. Perhaps you are suggesting the big bang didn't occur, and the universe is eternal? Fine by me, big bang is only a theory that may be disproved. An eternal universe to me is a perfectly sensible alternative, when you consider that all the alternatives are mind-bending.
When you watch an american movie , it nearly always has a christian moral to it.
Understandable, Christian morality is deeply embedded in western culture.
No surprise that their science is the same.
Not sure what you're saying here. Are you implying that the above named religious scientists work is shaped by their beliefs? Though I didn't know (or care) that Einstein or Hubble were theists, if they were then their work is going to naturally be shaped by their beliefs. Are you saying their work is fabricated or skewed to match christian values? I'm not accusing, just not quite sure what you're getting at with the introduction of religion. To be honest, not quite sure how we ended up discussing any of this in relation to a thread about carbon dating. That's philosophy for you I guess
Re: On Time and Archaeology
Well over on the happening thread,"Atheist vrs Skeptics" we are discussing the
way in which we filter or modify new information through the existing ideas , view of reality , so it is very difficult to seek to disprove your own beliefs or instincts on any subject.
We are far more likely to seek proofs for what we already believe.
And politically america I believe would lie to and deceive it's people in order to keep the illusion alive that religion is credible.
George Bush was prepared to go to war with Iraq , because god told him to , and surely it was a lie about the weapons of mass destruction???
way in which we filter or modify new information through the existing ideas , view of reality , so it is very difficult to seek to disprove your own beliefs or instincts on any subject.
We are far more likely to seek proofs for what we already believe.
And politically america I believe would lie to and deceive it's people in order to keep the illusion alive that religion is credible.
George Bush was prepared to go to war with Iraq , because god told him to , and surely it was a lie about the weapons of mass destruction???
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: On Time and Archaeology
Hmm...! You sound very botlike GF? As what need for politics here? If so, I'm impressed.Godfree wrote:Well over on the happening thread,"Atheist vrs Skeptics" we are discussing the
way in which we filter or modify new information through the existing ideas , view of reality , so it is very difficult to seek to disprove your own beliefs or instincts on any subject.
We are far more likely to seek proofs for what we already believe.
And politically america I believe would lie to and deceive it's people in order to keep the illusion alive that religion is credible.
George Bush was prepared to go to war with Iraq , because god told him to , and surely it was a lie about the weapons of mass destruction???
-
Mike Strand
- Posts: 406
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:54 am
- Location: USA
Re: On Time and Archaeology
Forgive me if this has already been discussed in this topic -- some of you might enjoy reading physicist Julian Barbour's book, "The End of Time". The opening post of this topic mentions our perception of the passage of time, and Barbour's book has a different viewpoint on this phenomenon. Any discussion on the ideas in this book?
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: On Time and Archaeology
Best state them first?
-
Mike Strand
- Posts: 406
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:54 am
- Location: USA
Re: On Time and Archaeology
Hi, Arising_uk, nice to see you in the science forum!
I didn't fully understand Barbour's book but found it fascinating -- a fun challenge. I came away with the impression that Barbour was saying we can do physics without the time (t) parameter, and that in some sense time and the passage of time were illusions. My personal impressions only.
I expressed my own thoughts on the concept of time in earlier posts (February 06 and 07, 2010, back on page 4). I would be gratified if you read them and had any comments, but that's your choice.
I think Barbour's view as expressed in the book "End of Time", while beyond my ability to understand very well, will not easily be accepted by most scientists -- again my own impression. Descriptions and theories about the world that appear to contradict our notion or intuition about time make me suspicious, but that's no proof against them!
I didn't fully understand Barbour's book but found it fascinating -- a fun challenge. I came away with the impression that Barbour was saying we can do physics without the time (t) parameter, and that in some sense time and the passage of time were illusions. My personal impressions only.
I expressed my own thoughts on the concept of time in earlier posts (February 06 and 07, 2010, back on page 4). I would be gratified if you read them and had any comments, but that's your choice.
I think Barbour's view as expressed in the book "End of Time", while beyond my ability to understand very well, will not easily be accepted by most scientists -- again my own impression. Descriptions and theories about the world that appear to contradict our notion or intuition about time make me suspicious, but that's no proof against them!
Re: On Time and Archaeology
Arising-UK,,, botlike???you have me there , who is bot and in which way am I like them.
I thought the politics about those who claim time had a beginning , was relevant to a thread discussing time.
I'm simply suggesting that politicians have for thousands of years made claims that were more about controlling the masses than they are about seeking the truth.
Do you believe everything a politician says.
And they will of course keep the truth from us,
If they"think" it's for our own good.
I thought the politics about those who claim time had a beginning , was relevant to a thread discussing time.
I'm simply suggesting that politicians have for thousands of years made claims that were more about controlling the masses than they are about seeking the truth.
Do you believe everything a politician says.
And they will of course keep the truth from us,
If they"think" it's for our own good.
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12259
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: On Time and Archaeology
GF, As I was going to delete it but thought I'd leave it to get your response.
It was the extreme contrast in the example and the out-of-contextness that caused me to blink, that and a bottle of wine, and that bots are becoming very good at trawling sites and using syntax programs(I guess) to stitch together a post from others. You can find numerous examples of people answering them here upon this site,Godfree wrote:Arising-UK,,, botlike???you have me there , who is bot and in which way am I like them. ...
not least some from me.
Apologies for any offense.
a_uk