Philosophy Now Forum

The beginning: where is it ?
===.
The beginning of Universe can be:
‘ big bang’ , ‘closed- gravity’ or ‘open - empty’.
#
First question:
Where did the mass for ‘ big bang’ come from?
Second question:
Where did the mass for ‘closed- gravity’ come from?
It is clear that these two questions lead to the third question:
How can the real mass appear from ‘open - empty’ space?
#
In my opinion to answer to this question we need to analyze
three theories: QT, SRT and Theory of Ideal gas.
1
Ideal gas.
100% of physicists believe that Theory of Ideal gas is an
abstract theory with abstract – virtual particles.
And then something happens there
( a temperature or volume or pressure changes maybe by
god’s interference) and it becomes real physical gas with
real particles.

I don’t believe in their opinion, I don’t believe in their god.
I believe in science and therefore I say that only QT and SRT
can explain the changes in the Ideal gas.
Only QT and SRT can explain how the virtual world of Ideal gas
becomes real one.
2
QT.
Dirac’s quantum theory says that a ‘open - empty’ space-
- vacuum is not empty at all - virtual particles exist there.
But Dirac didn’t give us the physical parameters of this
‘open - empty’ vacuum space.
This its weak point .
3
SRT.
The basis of SRT is an abstract ( -4D).
This its weak point.
#
In my opinion, if instead of ( -4D) and Dirac’s space
we take the physical laws and parameters of Ideal gas -
- all abstractions disappear and the real
picture of Universe will appear in front of us.
=============.
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==============================.

at the bottom of the bottle

-Imp

So if we cannot establish where the beginning was then shall we conclude from this that there was no beginning at all ?

St. John offers: "In the beginning was the word (or the verb)."
But he does not say where.

which of the two assumptions is more plausible:

1. that there was a beginning of the universe

2. that there never has been any beginning of the universe (but only a transformation of energy, which has been preserved, is being preserved and will always be preserved)

duszek wrote:which of the two assumptions is more plausible:

1. that there was a beginning of the universe

2. that there never has been any beginning of the universe (but only a transformation of energy, which has been preserved, is being preserved and will always be preserved)

These are not the only possible options.
Taking time and space as properties of the Universe is another possibility.
This view does not allow for the existence of a time or a space which are 'outside' the Universe. In this view, space-time might be closed- that is, one can take a sphere like the earth as analogous to the (impossible to picture mentally) space-time 'sphere' of the Universe. Then one can see that the 'beginning' and the 'end' of the Universe are analogous to the North and South poles of the Earth- ie, that one could walk straight across one of these poles without noticing; but still, one would then be going in the opposite direction.

where is the beginning of a ring?

-Imp

This analogy is not good because you can always ask: and what´s behind the universe ? that is: what´s behind the huge ball ?
empty space or what ?
And is the empty space not part of the universe ?

No beginning, no end, neither in time nor in space. That´s what I say.

duszek wrote:This analogy is not good because you can always ask: and what´s behind the universe ? that is: what´s behind the huge ball ?
empty space or what ?
And is the empty space not part of the universe ?

No beginning, no end, neither in time nor in space. That´s what I say.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say this analogy is 'not good'. If you mean simply that it doesn't answer your question, that's fine. Maybe I just misunderstood your question.
As to being able to ask 'What's behind...etc' in this model there is no 'behind' or 'beyond'.
For ths particular model of cosmology, the Universe does not start out as a tiny bright spot in the midst of an eternal expanse of darkness and emptiness, and then start expanding outwards. So there isn't, in this view, any 'empty space' or 'endless time' within which the Universe is an event with outer borders. The space-time continuum is a property of the Universe. There isn't an outside or a before and there won't be an after. The Universe is just 'it'. All there is.

Impenitent wrote:where is the beginning of a ring?

-Imp

Depends what kind of ring?

How a wave and particle can coexist?
==.
From Huygens / Newton’s time the light from the
one hand is wave and from the other hand is particle.
‘ But what is light really?
Is it a wave or a shower of photons? ‘
/ N. Bohr /
How to understand this coexistence?
#
The wave of air consists of air - particles.
The wave of water consists of water- particles.
The electric wave must consist of . . electrons.
The light wave must consist of light- particles.

So, to understand the wave phenomena we must
examine its single particle. What is a single
quantum of light? We don’t know.

Let us say that quantum of light is an abstract particle
and then put it into another abstraction ‘ Ideal gas’,
which has only one physical condition: T= 0K.

What is possible to say about this abstract picture?
=======.
S.
==========.
#
"The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory
starts from a paradox." / Heisenberg,
Physics and Philosophy, pg. 44./
===.

Let us say that quantum of light is an abstract particle
and then put it into another abstraction ‘ Ideal gas’,
which has only one physical condition: T= 0K.

Now we will test it with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty
principle. What is possible to say about this picture?

We see that the abstract particle becomes real alive particle.
The dead person was reborn again.
Is it mysticism?
I don’t know.
I only know that according to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty
Principle and the ‘ method of renormalization‘ the Universe
begin to show itself.
==========.
S.

socratus wrote:Let us say that quantum of light is an abstract particle

The 'quantum' isn't a particle, it's more like a measure or amount, in the same way that 'ounce' and 'gram' are amounts of weight; 'mile' and 'inch' are amounts of distance; 'litre' and 'gallon' are amounts of volume. The word 'quantum' is used to refer to the smallest possible 'amount' of energy. So a particle, (for example an electron) can only have certain discrete levels of energy, and cannot, even theoretically, exist in a state part-way between these levels. Imagine the particle at some moment has a certain level of energy, and the next moment it has a lower (or higher) level of energy, without at any time being in a state that is partway between those two levels. Difficult to picture, isn't it? And it hardly makes sense to us. But this is what existence is really 'like' on the sub-atomic scale. The smallest possible 'amount' of energy that the particle can gain or lose is what the word 'quantum' refers to.
This is strange to us, but it isn't mysticism. The theory works very well, very consistently, and has done for a century now. It seems mysterious to us because our brains have developed naturally to deal with the world as it is on our scale; on different scales the world is different, and we can't really use our normal vocabulary to describe it. But mathematical models of the observed results of scientific experiment can describe this world-scale very well indeed.
Hence we have several different 'interpretations' of quantum physics, but all of them using the same mathematics, and all of them describing (or more exactly, trying to picture in terms we can relate to with our human experiences) the same phenomenon; ie, what the world is like on the 'quantum' scale.
And yes, it can look like mysticism; Have you read Fritjof Kapra's 'The Tao of Physics'?

Quantum probably comes from Latin and means: how much.

If you use a model of a big ball then there is a frontier between the ball and outside of the ball.
And if there is no outside of the universe then the model of a ball is not good.

Thundril wrote:

socratus wrote:Let us say that quantum of light is an abstract particle

The 'quantum' isn't a particle, it's more like a measure or amount, in the same way that 'ounce' and 'gram' are amounts of weight; 'mile' and 'inch' are amounts of distance; 'litre' and 'gallon' are amounts of volume. The word 'quantum' is used to refer to the smallest possible 'amount' of energy. So a particle, (for example an electron) can only have certain discrete levels of energy, and cannot, even theoretically, exist in a state part-way between these levels. Imagine the particle at some moment has a certain level of energy, and the next moment it has a lower (or higher) level of energy, without at any time being in a state that is partway between those two levels. Difficult to picture, isn't it? And it hardly makes sense to us. But this is what existence is really 'like' on the sub-atomic scale. The smallest possible 'amount' of energy that the particle can gain or lose is what the word 'quantum' refers to.

Hi Thundril,

Welcome to the forum. I just wanted to clarify what you mean here. Do you mean to say that an electron can exhibit different states of energy but that the change between the 2 states is nonexistent? And it is this measure of energy that is the definition of the word "quantum?

(sorry in advance for my ignorance. I just want to follow along in order to learn.)